 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
OK, for those speaking about the definition of poverty- DEFINE WEALTH. Tell me when someone is rich.
If you can come up with a non-arbitrary definition of being rich, THEN AND ONLY THEN can you demand a non-arbitrary definition of what is poor, which is simply the opposite of rich. So when is someone rich?
Cause if not starving means you aint poor, then owning a house and two cars must certainly be considered being rich, NO?
On the ESTATE tax (not a death tax cause 98% of the population will never pay it in any way, so it most certainly is NOT a death tax), the state has all the right to tax that- the fact is, anyone seeing their inheritance being taxed will get a huge sum anyway, so the tax is hardly a burden on anyone at all. And any true massive estate will be in all sorts of forms which won't even bne taxed. So boo, hoo whatever.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
On the ESTATE tax (not a death tax cause 98% of the population will never pay it in any way, so it most certainly is NOT a death tax), the state has all the right to tax that- the fact is, anyone seeing their inheritance being taxed will get a huge sum anyway, so the tax is hardly a burden on anyone at all. And any true massive estate will be in all sorts of forms which won't even bne taxed. So boo, hoo whatever. |
Estate tax is easily skirtted by setting up a living trust, however. It don't cost much to do either. Thing is, not many ppl know this. IMO, poor ppl could be richer if they learned, middle class ppl can be richer if they didn't settle, and rich ppl can be richer if they pay their taxes...
Nothing is out of reach for the common folk. It is the uncommon folk that I am willing to help, even support. Those who are disabled, temporary unemployed, elderly, etc. I have no care for ppl who are to lazy to work and take advantage of an F'd up system. Fix the system and I will pay more without complaint.
I would rather take care of those ppl who are on welfare because their jackass husband knocked them up and ran out on them instead of some whore who has more babies to get more cash.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
People only begtin to pay the Estate tax on estates of over $600,000 dollars. Rgith now that means a tiny portion of the population ever even has to worry, and the minimum goes up with small businesses and family farms anyway. And as I said, if you are getting an estate large enough to warrant paying the estate tax, then you have nothing to worry financially unlesss you are a stupid investor, or a habitual gambler.
quote:
I would rather take care of those ppl who are on welfare because their jackass husband knocked them up and ran out on them instead of some whore who has more babies to get more cash. |
IN my job I deal with a lot of case, and usually it is single women on SSI or Disability (which means at some point they worked but no longer can), with some disability or varrying kinds, and with little living space, paying 60-80% monthly incomes in rent if they are not lucky enough to live in subsidized or public housing (which has its own problems)-the system gives a little help, but a lot of the time, it is simply a disaster: to tell 2 horror stories from the front lines:
1. In NYS, the government is supposed to provide housing for the poor with AIDS- in theory, they should be placed in medically safe emergency housing while more permanent housing is found. Well, what does the City government do? With 0 oversight from anyone, they place AIDS patients in slums, sometimes without private bathrooms, refrigerators or with leaking cellings and broken doors and windows. THEN the city pays the slumlords up to $2400 a MONTH fore 1 bedroom slums, simply becuase these are the only people willing to take them. if you don;t know, for $2400 even in NYC you can get a njice 2 bedroom in NYC at market prices.
2. NYC has about 900,000 residents who apply for food stamps. a federal program which would bring in a billion in Fed money back to NYC. Well, the City made it difficult to even apply. Many food stamp offices did not even have applications, and the ones they had were 12 pages long.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:33
|
|
I'm firmly in Ming's camp where the estate taxation is concerned. Doesn't matter to me if it only applies to a relatively small minority or no....it's double taxation no matter how you slice it. The government has already taxed the money....done deal.
And while I'm all for increasing marginal tax rates as incomes increase, so that the wealthiest individuals shoulder an increasing percentage of the tax load (and therefore against the flat tax scheme entire), that's a far, far cry from espousing some of Kid's (and others...definitely not singling you out Kid, you're just generally the most vocal proponent) ideas 'bout equality.
Wealth is power.
Power carries responsibility. Now, rightly or wrongly, the government has stepped in to take on the mantle OF that responsibility, by way of taxation to fund social programs. It could be (and has been) argued that if left to their own devices and NOT harshly taxed, the wealthy would, of their own accord, fund charities and the like which would step in and accomplish the same goals that our government programs currently meet (or attempt to).
The underlying problem of such a "hands off" approach is that it is not predictable. One year, giving may soar, and the next, it may all but dry up. Less variance in the funding of government social programs, especially the most established ones, so from a stable, predictive standpoint, inefficient or not, government mandated programs seem the best option (though clearly there is a GREAT DEAL of work that can and should be done to increase the efficient operation OF said programs, and *this* is where the greater bulk of our efforts should be focused...the problem ain't the money, it's the waste).
Equality and Justice does NOT mean reducing everybody to the lowest common denominator. It doesn't mean taking (forcibly, if needs be) from those who have, and outright giving to those who have not. It doesn't even mean that everybody should have to work for their "benefits." What it means is that everybody has a shot. A chance for betterment. To attempt to define it any more precisely than that invites anything but a utopian society....one where everybody feels compelled to watch everybody else over their shoulders to make sure that nobody's "getting more" than me. It breeds a sick kind of societal paranoia that we can frankly do without.
No...this form of equality does not guarantee each and every individual that he/she can achieve Gatesian-style wealth....nor should it. What it DOES guarantee is that everybody has a shot at improving where they are, and with the right kind of taxation system in place, those who find success can leave the security that they built over the course of their lifetime to their loved ones, and that's important because the familial bond is the strongest and most basic/fundamental of our societal ties...yes, even in the face of massive divorce rates and unwed mothers, and all that other jazz. I look out for my FAMILY first and foremost. I don't look after yours, cos frankly, that's your job, and as with any other job, if you don't perform, you're the one that gets the reprimand....not me. Government funded programs are there (and there by majority consent) to assist folks who are down on their luck, not to provide a lifetime's supply of leisure and luxury (and despite a few well publicized cases of abuse, they don't).
Our current system is far from perfect, but it has proven itself over time, and has a demonstrated robustness. It can withstand tinkering and incremental improvement, and that is the surest path to success. To take that robust system and dismantle it entire for something different (especially if that "something different" is either unproven/untested, or based on strange notions of "equality," with arbitrary and inflexible underpinnings) is the purest form of folly, IMO.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
So no, you don't have kids. |
Fair enough.
Are you going to claim that when I have my kids I will decide that the death tax is a bad idea? I do have parents with a sizeable estate. Strange that this hasn't effected my opinion so far.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
Then I repeat, this isn't a socialist country. That's not how we do it. Fair... maybe not... but our system is based on you being able to earn a better life for youself by working hard and smart... not "everybody gets the same" no matter how hard you work or how lazy you are.
|
This statement seems somewhat at odds with your stated opposition to a death tax. "our system is based on you being able to earn a better life for youself by working hard and smart" certainly implies that hereditary wealth is not the natural way we would expect people to make their living.
(Gepap I call it death tax because I tire peeps always changing it back to 'death tax' in any coversation in which I use the term "estate tax". At least by calling it a "death tax" I know they won't waste time attacking the label I put on it.)
Last edited by Geronimo on 29-07-2004 at 10:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
To attempt to define it any more precisely than that invites anything but a utopian society....one where everybody feels compelled to watch everybody else over their shoulders to make sure that nobody's "getting more" than me. It breeds a sick kind of societal paranoia that we can frankly do without.
|
People seem to do that instinctively in our current system anyway judging by the widespread phenomena of purchasing 'status symbols' intended to advertise ones financial success. Anyway your objections sound an awful lot like the old regimes objections to introduction of fairness to the politcal system.
Why is an effort to craft a political system that best promotes equal voices in the formation of government laudable while an effort to craft a tax policy that best promotes equal opportunity in the economy is not? If Equal political opportunity is a good and even necessary thing then why not equal economic opportunity?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
atomant
|
 |
Aussie, no longer lost in Africa
Jul 2002
time: 15:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Apparently they don't have an equal right though. |
I thought it was common knowledge that all people are equal, just some are more eual than others. My present tax bracket is 48%. To put that in context, the montly income tax I pay equals the salary of two government ministers. Now under normal circumstances I wouldn't mind paying tax as long as I am getting value for money (as is the case in Sweden for example). On top of this my employer has to pay my private health insurance because going to a government hospital here is like going to a mortuary.
In regard to death tax, I agree with Ming, why should I or my estate have to pay tax twice on money I have earned. The government taxes my, salary, savings account, I get taxed on every deposit and withdrawal, I pay VAT on all purchases, I get taxed on investments I made etc etc etc. To those leaning slightly left of center, I started with nothing and everything I have I worked damn hard for. The reason I work hard is so my children will have a good start in life. Simple, not your children or anyone elses.
If that makes me a miser, or a scrooge, so be it. One thing people often forget is that wealthy people employ others to work for them, thereby creating employment and injecting further money into the economy for the purchase of goods and services. Are we saying we wish to tax until death (and beyond) those people who allow the rest of us to enjoy a life?
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-07-2004 06:33
although I'm not comparing africa.
|