 |
| |
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Geronimo -
That's a bogus argument, liberals won't let people hand over their money to their offspring when they're alive so they can avoid the death tax, there are all sorts of limits on what parents can give their kids to ensure there are estates liberals can tax to high heaven.
It's called respecting their wishes. Dying people feel better when we do that...
They can't make money when their dead either. So the money being taken was earned when they were alive, and that's when they are enslaved. Might as well tell people to spend everything they have because you will take it when they die. Hell, might as well send grave diggers into coffins to grab any other possessions they're buried with.  Better yet, why bury people in marked graves we're supposed to leave indisturbed? According to you, they shouldn't even own the burial plot. |
Oh, I just thought of another angle from which to approach this objection! The original owners of all real estate in the US were the native Americans. Their clear and unmistakable preference would be for their property to pass on to their descendants. Since they only lost this property due to illegal seizure by the US government for the purpose of re-distribution to others do you support recognizing property claims of their descendants so as to demonstrate your respect for the wishes of the dead for their property? They are, after all, no more dead now than they were the day after they died.
My point, once again, is that respect for the wishes of the dead does not deserve the same consideration as respecting ones control over the fruits of their own labor and talents. the estate tax is bad but all other taxes are even worse.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If I only work 20 hours a week, let's say I earn X dollars. If I work 40 hours a week, I'll earn 2*X dollars. You become rich by being talented and applying that talent (ie working hard). |
If you don't sleep and don't eat, you can work at most 24*7 a week. That is 168 hours. That means you would make slightly 4 times than somebody who works a normal week, but that's impossible.
So, say you can work 120 hour weeks. That means you would make 3 times as much as a normal person. It still doesn't work however, since you won't find a job where the company would allow you to clock essentially unlimited hours. If you are in a salaried position your overtime work is similar restricted per month.
But what is rich? Take something simple, a million dollars in liquid assets. Assuming that you are going to buy a house, buy a car, raise a family somewhere along the line, and retire at 65, figure how out what X needs to be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
chegitz - quote:
"On a scale of 1 to 10, Democrats abused their majority status at about a level 5 or 6, Republicans today have moved it to about an 11." Norman J. Ornstein, of the American Enterprise Institute. |
Payback's a ***** After decades of Democrats screwing Repubs, it's not surprising if they come back with a vengeance.
UR - quote:
Again, what's wrong with that? |
What's wrong with it is another matter, I was merely explaining to those who don't like it being called a death tax that the phrase applies.
quote:
Certainly, whatever money and assets a person receives through inheritance should be counted as income. He did not pay a single penny of tax on that. |
Their folks did multiple times.
quote:
Your hypothetical scenario bears zero resemblance to reality. |
No kidding I was merely illustrating an economic principle about efficiency and how production increases using it.
quote:
What Berz missed completely is the help these people received from their families when they started out. Such as knowing the right people or giving them seed money. |
I didn't miss it, it isn't relevant. The question was: are there more people who become millionaires via inheritance while sitting on their butts than people who work for it. It appears there are more people who work for it...
quote:
As GePap pointed out, how many of these self-made millionaires started from the bottom 5% or 10%? |
Not many, but many started out as lower-middle to middle class when young. Most millionaires are elderly people who've accumulated wealth from a lifetime of work.
quote:
It is not an accusation, it's a rebuttal.
Berzerker was trying to establish some kind of la-la land hypothetical, thus it is up to him to make it work. Distractors only need to point out the flaws in his model. |
You didn't point out any flaws, you merely announced it wasn't a real world example.
Thx Geronimo, you seem quite fair  even if we disagree about the death tax. (No UR, I'm not saying you aren't fair )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
UR - quote:
I did point out the flaw, namely, his hypothetical has no resemblance to reality.
People do not become rich by working harder. There's a local saying that goes, "A cattle works hard too, you don't see it strike it rich." |
Which is why I preceded hard work with "inventive" and ended it with "etc", cows aren't inventive. I never said hard work alone leads to immense wealth, but it sure helps.
quote:
Don't you think a blacksmith in a pre-industrial town worked hard? How many of them got rich that way? |
I don't know, you have stats? I imagine they got richer than people with lesser trade skills.
quote:
It's only in some la-la land where the rich becomes rich because they work hard and those who are poor are their own damn fault. |
If that's all you got out of that, try reading it slower and focusing on the principle being illustrated. I'm not issuing blame with my hypothetical, I'm trying to explain that taking resources from the productive and giving it to the unproductive hurts production which will hurt the unproductive in the long run. If we deter the successful from achievement we hurt the unsuccessful. How many jobs have you had working for a poor unsuccessful person?
MRT - quote:
UR! THANK YOU! This is what ive been waiting for. I question whether hard work is really all there is to life. Goddamn calvinist thinking! |
If you want wealth and the ability to produce, it sure helps and it helps others. That was one of the points I was making. It would be nice if you guys could actually respond to what I said and stop with the paranoia about what you think I'm saying.
Geronimo - quote:
Oh, I just thought of another angle from which to approach this objection! The original owners of all real estate in the US were the native Americans. |
Not true, liberals tell us they didn't believe in ownership. But seriously, they owned some of the land but there were vast stretches that went unowned. Furthermore, there is evidence caucasians were here too ~10,000 years ago but lost out to more recent invasions from Siberia.
quote:
Their clear and unmistakable preference would be for their property to pass on to their descendants. Since they only lost this property due to illegal seizure by the US government for the purpose of re-distribution to others do you support recognizing property claims of their descendants so as to demonstrate your respect for the wishes of the dead for their property? |
Post mortem transactions and wishes apply to the parent and their living offspring, not thousands or hundreds of years. The point being these Indians died without knowing their wishes would one day be dis-solved...
quote:
They are, after all, no more dead now than they were the day after they died. |
Yes, but their contracts are long dead.
quote:
My point, once again, is that respect for the wishes of the dead does not deserve the same consideration as respecting ones control over the fruits of their own labor and talents. the estate tax is bad but all other taxes are even worse. |
Should we do away with post mortem debt? I mean, since we're going to grab the dead's property, their estates can't very well deal with debtors.
And thx Kuci for the same reason...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:33
|
|
A few things
1. Assets of a million is hardly rich if you look ahead-- Financial planners can scare the heck out of you if they calculate the amount of wealth you need to maintain an income of say 40,000 in todays dollars from age 60 and through your projected lifespan.
2. The argument that their is no harm in taxing a dead person because they are . .. well .. . dead is irrelevant. If its my stuff I can do with it as I will, if I drop dead 10 minutes from now, should that stuff be less used for the support of my wife and child
3. I think Vel wins the new rich/old rich debate if you accept his definition of 1 MILLION as rich. BUt the uber wealthy worth hundreds of millions . .. I suspect are mainly inherited
4. based on his worldview, I doubt I will ever be able to agree with Kidicious on pretty much anything. I just cannot believe in his redistributive theories. To me a society where effort and talent gets directly rewarded will be the strongest economic model
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
GP - That's a good idea! And so you know, I DID read the article in its entirety, and NONE of the facts you posted in any way change the fact that the original hypothesis as given is still.....say it with me....FALSE!
-=Vel=-
(amazing, I know) |
The issue becomes this- what percentage of overall wealth lies with the very very top does not change- which overall signifies stagnation in terms of how wealth moves around.
Again, how many of those new "millionaires" can actually spend their money and remain millionaries-by that I mean say buy a luxury item, or a new home (since the article says home equity is not counted) and still remain millionaires?
Cause according to the article, most of this new wealth comes from investements, so it is sunk in various forms that are not easily spent. Someone who has a total of 1 million in savings, IRA accounts and stock accounts is hardly of the same level as someone who earns a million a year or more. It would seem most of those new millionaries probalby make between 150,000 to 200,000 a year in actual income pre-taxes.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
why is it so hard for you to understand some basic truths?
The dead are not being taxed-their estate is being taxed, since it is a transfer of wealth, and transfer of wealth are taxed. Insofar as estates are taxed, only by far the biggest estates are taxed-no one who ever gets money from a estate that actually had to pay the estate tax will go hungry, specially if they are the sole recipients. This is doen based on a policy decision that would rpefer to avoid the mass accumulation of extreme wealth in a few small hands without simply prohibiting the passing on of money.
So stop misconstruing the tax. Its an ESTATE tax, not a tax on dying. If you die with $2000 in the bank, not a penny of that will be taxed. So it most obviously is NOt a tax on dying. Stop lying. |
If you earn $2000 dollars a year, not a penny of that will be taxed, so clearly the income tax isn't, in fact, an income tax... wait a second...
|
|
| |
|
| |
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 09:58
|