Text 3313, 144 rader
Skriven 2006-07-05 11:22:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3786.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: <6e8de$44aaf126$18d64cf6$22896@KNOLOGY.NET>
@REPLY: <A-udnRG9z7NAFDvZnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qolla290phc805lmtp152ts0te15pl3d9c@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:49:43 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
> <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
<snip>
> >
> >Oh? I thought it was his ancestor's money.
>
> Nothing is the ancestor's money -- he's dead.
>
> Once again, from an economic perspective, the heir is taxing you, and
> his heirs are, in perpetuity.

Not at all - when Kennedy or Bill Gates goes and the money gets distributed
to the heirs, I'll not have a single penny less than before. Its not a tax.
Its not my money.

<snip>
> >
> >Ok, so lets see if I understand this:
> >a) the inheritance tax is to prevent an "american aristocracy"
> >   I think we can both admit that its failed in this, since we do have a
> >moneyed "class".
>
> Well, the rich found ways around it. And when people find ways around
> a desirable law, the right thing to do is to fix the law to patch the
> loopholes.

And oddly, this hasn't happened - not even in 1976 during the last
"revision".
Why do you think that is?

>
> But beyond that, I don't think that it's an either-or situation.
> Merely reducing the rate at which wealth is transmitted can be enough
> to prevent the creation of a static aristocracy, since in today's
> world fortunes tend to be split up among multiple heirs and since not
> all heirs are wise with their money. So while old money wealth remains
> real, it's outweighed by new money wealth, and the old money families
> are actually a good deal less influential than they were 50 years ago
> and progressively losing their perks, e.g., admission to the finest
> schools.

Sounds like it'd be better to le them keep it. Spending helps grow the
economy, right?
:-)
And excessive taxes can hurt the economy.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0CE4D91039F935A15752C0A964958260


>
> >b) the inheritance tax is designed to prevent "the very talented and
highly
> >edicated" from wasting their lives
>
> >   And yet you admit that you've seen this happen often enough
>
> Again, it isn't completely effective. But note that I've also seen the
> opposite effect, e.g., a friend who started a business because his
> lifetime share of the much-diminished family fortune was "only" a $1
> million trust fund and he needed more money to live the life to which
> he was accustomed. I don't know how much of that has to do with the
> inheritance tax -- his family may well have been hit by the original
> estate tax, but I believe the greatest blow to their family fortunes,
> including the loss of their bank, occurred during the Great
> Depression.

So he had inspiration, and better opportunities as a result of the
inheritance.
Good deal.

>
> >So its ineffective at achieving those stated aims, and yet it should be
> >kept?
>
> You take what you can get: partially effective is better than not at
> all.

Regardless of whomever may get hurt in the process, such as being forced to
sell the items that made the estate so valuable in the first place.

>
> >> >Now, welfare on the other hand, often has the opposite effect.
> >> >Government is providing support to receipients with the actual purpose
> >> >that those receiving the support continue to support the government.
As
> >> >such, it is TO THE GOVERNMENTS SELF INTEREST to have as many beholdent
> >> >to them as possible, even if they accomplish this by giving people
back
> >> >their own tax money (after they take their cut) to earn there loyalty.
> >> >Now, this is not just for welfare or food stamps, but has come to
apply
> >> >to social security, disability, and most other government programs.
> >>
> >> And the alternative is what, going back to the days when to be poor
> >> was to starve? Didn't work then and it won't work now.
> >>
> >> If you /are/ seriously interested in keeping government from buying
> >> votes, take a look at middle class entitlements like the mortgage
> >> deduction, or at the Republican tax cuts for the rich.
> >
> >Josh, who pays the most in income taxes?
>
> Why would that matter? The question I'd ask is who pays the most in
> /taxes/ compared to /their actual income and capital gains./ Just try
> to find the answer.

Because, any move to cut taxes, will affect "the rich" because they're the
ones who pay the most.
particularly with AMT.

<snip>
> >>
> >> This is rather profoundly twisted. Social Security, for example, is an
> >> insurance program. Welfare, small potatoes that it is, is a program
> >> originally designed to help those in need and, in particular, their
> >> children; it is a charitable program. That they are government
> >> programs is neither here nor there, except insofar as participation is
> >> mandatory, as some things must be in any nation.
> >
> >So you do see the difference between welfare and inheritance?
>
> It would be more accurate to say that I see the differences, and I see
> the similarities. I thought that was understood.

Good deal.

Dennis


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