 |
| |
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
You wanna back that up? |
Even more than I would like to back that up I would like any self described libertarian to tell me flat out if they think that it is critical even sacred that people be allowed to keep every penny that they earn and that income through unearned transfers of wealth from others is unnatural (though not necessarily bad it is by no means sacred unlike money we transfer to ourselves by earning that is to say even creating it).
Is there no party that endorses trying to fashion a system of government that recognizes that society functions best as a meritocracy (preferably through as little direct government control as possible)?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
Damnit berz, answer my post just above. You're a self described libertarian aren't you? please, I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
 I love it when you guys get riled up!
Here's some other groovy statistics for you:
US population grows at about 3.2 million a year
1.4 million of that comes from immigration (leaving us with 1.8 Million native births, and going on the assumption that most, if not all of the immigrants TO this country are not in the "rich" category, especially given that approximately one third of the immigrant population entering the country does so illegally)
Now...if you wanna look at the top 1% of the income earners in the nation, we'll do that, and even be charitible enough to give them their full "cut" of those 1.8 million births, or 18k per year.
Contrast that with 270,000 newly made millionaires between 2002 - 2004.
36k new kidderos for the uber rich vs 270k newly made millionaires.
Which number's bigger again?
-=Vel=- |
Well, how many new millionaries are trust fund babies, the grandchildren and children of the Uberich who are now the guardians of their money? How many are "millionaires" soley on the woerth of their no-liquid assets, like apartments? Cause the average NYC apartment currently sells for 1 million, so there are plenty of families who might have assets of over a million but can;t easily convert that into actual money easily. Finally, what percentage of those new millionaires came from the bottom 5%, and how many from the top 5% (not 1, but 5%), or from the bottom 10% and the top 10%?
Cause if 95% of all new millionaires are from the families of those who begun in the 90% precentile or above (given the numbers you give, there certainly are more than enough kids in the top 10% to account for every single new millionaire) andf only 5% form the bottom 90%, then your idea of total and complete class mobility is shattered.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
Geronimo - quote:
Damnit berz, answer my post just above. |
Both our posts require information neither of us offered, so what is there to "answer"? Be specific as to what you want answered.
quote:
You're a self described libertarian aren't you? please, I'm genuinely curious. |
Yes.
Gepap - quote:
Cause if 95% of all new millionaires are from the families of those who begun in the 90% precentile or above (given the numbers you give, there certainly are more than enough kids in the top 10% to account for every single new millionaire) andf only 5% form the bottom 90%, then your idea of total and complete class mobility is shattered. |
What economic system allows for better class mobility than ours? How many of those kids started out with ~$800,000? Not many, most start out with jobs and don't inherit money until they're well on their way to being millionaires on their own. Obviously there aren't many people who are dirt poor and strike it rich "overnight", but given a lifetime of steady advancement up the economic ladder they can become millionaires or very close when they retire.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quote:
Originally posted by Geronimo
But the lazy leaching off the hard working is exactly what wealth inheritance is all about! |
If I decide to use my money to support someone, what's it to you? It's my money.
Anyway, another consequence of your argument (unintended, I'm sure) is that charities would have to be taxed heavily too - I mean, it's the same thing! They're getting money without working for it! |
I have never respected the rights of the dead to own property. When I'm dead I think I will no longer be entitled to claim ownership of anything. So yeah, I agree your money (if you earned it) is your money exclusively in a very profoundly sacred sense. But when you're dead it won't be your money anymore and even if it was you are giving it away to someone else so it still will no longer be your money. So why shouldn't I want that money (which no longer belongs to the person who earned it) to get hit with the tax stick instead of the money that I and other productive people earned?
I'd hit charities with the tax stick too except every cent given to charity can be another cent that the government doesn't try to take from Earners to fill some politically volitile perceived "need".
So no taxes on charities simply because that would probably produce more irrational demand for government services. yuck.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
ok.
dino doc. i believe taxing the rich more can add needed money to the government to fund socially responsible programs.
berzeker, next time you put words in my mouth make sure they dont come out of your ass
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
apher please explain why and how it matters how many times my money is taxed. |
Geronimo!
It is definitly important why and how taxes are levied, very important. However, inheritence tax/death tax I am truly fine with, it's only when people try to ruin that they shouldn't be able to get away with it. For every law their will be away around it.
Is it fair? Hell ya! Those who know how to handle money tend to earn more of it, tend to educate their kids how to handle it, and tend to avoid more taxes.
Is it wrong? Hell no! Money matters are not something taught in school, they are learned through live, ambition, and hard work. If I think that someone is entitled to keeping what they work for than that's my deal. It is also my motivation that hard work pays off. If you are willing to work your ass off only to give it all away than that is your deal.
Most ppl work so that their kids can have a better life than them, and if they die before they can give it to them should they be taxed for it?
Taxes are everywhere. I admire Ted Turner for giving money to the government as charity donation. I admire Ted Turner (sorry to pick on him) for generating a company and an industry that has given so many jobs and incomes that the government can continue to tax for whatever they want to do. It is that kind of career creation and tax creation that makes this country rich, and is why there are tax breaks for those who do such; the returns come 10 fold for such people... and you are going to complain over inheritence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
But the lazy leaching off the hard working is exactly what wealth inheritance is all about! |
Incorrect, leeches are parasites that take without consent. Parents giving their children money is consensual... They want a better life for their children so they help them. It's their money, not yours. The leeches are the liberals who think they are entitled to other people's money and take it by force, without consent. Besides, damn near every child of a future millionaire works for a living long before they inherit money. You guys may find it convenient to condemn inheritance by focusing on the small minority who sit back and inherit a million without ever really working themselves, but that is a stereotype people into class warfare use to distort reality.
quote:
Which misses the point that the factors that make one rich are very likely at least in part genetic (as well as "inherited" through family values/methods of upbringing that continue from generation to generation in a family), so the number is really meaningless - how many of these people would have become rich on their own? It could be a significant number. |
Uh oh, let's steal their genes for re-distribution and then we can steal their parents to raise other people's children. 
quote:
Because it's his work |
And he can do what he wants with the results. The irony here is while you guys condemn inheritance because it's one person acquiring money from the labor of another (the fact it's consensual is lost on y'all), you guys want to acquire money from other people's labor too (but without consent). Funny you'd look down your nose at people who inherit...
quote:
oooooh yes, let's call it the "death" tax so people think it's bad... |
It is bad, and it is a death tax. People pay taxes on their income, and then that income is taxed again when they die, because they die. If they didn't die, the tax wouldn't exist. Of course, I'm sure liberals would demand we tax people for living too long.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quote:
I have never respected the rights of the dead to own property. When I'm dead I think I will no longer be entitled to claim ownership of anything. So yeah, I agree your money (if you earned it) is your money exclusively in a very profoundly sacred sense. But when you're dead it won't be your money anymore and even if it was you are giving it away to someone else so it still will no longer be your money. |
Why can't I decide what will be done with my money after I die? |
Sure decide what you want. But do not expect me to ascribe to your post mortem transactions the same validity that I give to your ownership of the money you earn. It's critical that we control the fruits of our own labors but it's of no consequence that other people get to keep the fruits of our labors after we leave the world. My objection to taking someone's earned money is that it is tantamount to slavery. Can't enslave someone who is dead. only the living.
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quote:
I'd hit charities with the tax stick too except every cent given to charity can be another cent that the government doesn't try to take from Earners to fill some politically volitile perceived "need".
So no taxes on charities simply because that would probably produce more irrational demand for government services. yuck. |
So what if there's that demand? According to you, such programs shouldn't exist in the first place - after all, welfare is by definition giving money to people who don't work! |
Because I'm enough of a pragmatist to realize that if charities are discouraged it will be that much harder to protect the integrity of earned property from the grubby hands of the government. Throughout history governments have always viewed bread riots as a dangerous thing to be avoided at any cost, especially when that cost can be planted on the shoulders of the earners.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
as for the inheritance or estate tax, (death tax is silly because its not like the person is taxed when he dies. Imagine the scene: "well willy just kicked off, thatll be 1000 dollars. Oh he died of a gunshot wound...very sorry, its now 10000." It really is a tax on what you inherit and pass along. dolts.) im against it. what you do with your money after youre is your business. however, while youre alive, you i believe that a part of your income needs to go programs that benefit a large group of people.
forced alrtuism is far from the worst thing in the world.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-07-2004 05:46
|