Post #272,337
11/6/06 12:40:16 AM
11/6/06 12:46:22 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
I'll accept alternatives: I ain't The LRPD
So then - you really think this is the best of all possible worlds, should be freeze-dried in situ? Funny, you don't sound like a Reactionary.
What I'd like to explore, to the limited extent that's possible (is obvious, I'd think:) a sane means for reducing the number of feckless, arrogant, vacuous Shrub-style wastrels. Those with enough bestowed Power-of$$ to amplify their obtuseness - to the detriment sometimes, of millions.
Shrub is hardly the first, merely the winner of the most destruction/year of any recent ones that come to mind. (Often these simply self-destruct somewhere along the personality circuit - that only pisses away the $power.. mostly sparing the general society. No problem with those.)
We are not Required! to worship capital-accumulation as a viable substitute for living a real life. It's just a habit of past narrow thought - which, so far has replaced the aristocrats with equivalents little diffferent from the earlier Robber Barons. 'Meritocracy' my ass or your arse.. along with the other made-up words-of-commerce and out-of-control personal greed left unrestrained -- perhaps including active, willful opposition to any sane reponse to the next planetary Unexpected matters. I'd say: 'likely opposition' to adapting; it's already evident.
Wanna save all that Loot, anyway? Make a Foundation. Or let it be taxed/forfeited, intelligently recycled for some thrashed-out notion of 'Public Good'. 'Government' is too large a straw man; there could be many ways of avoiding simply throwing such proceeds into the General Trough, as invitation for all that pork pulling. We'd have to actually think about those 'foundation-like'alternatives - not mindlessly sloganeer them into absurdity.
Debatable at every step, but - let's Have that National referendum, if we do manage to survive the effects of just the latest one of these airheads leveraging a dynasty's spawn into close proximity with the Bagman. (On his own, sans bail-outs and his name-icon - Shrub could likely have managed a video store, or even a chain. Or learned to play the clarinet.)
And yes, I see any number of OTOH: While Joseph Kennedy made his loot bootlegging (+ related nefarious others) - at least, JFK was assuredly competent for any pol; RFK would almost surely have been Pres. Teddy has been a mixed bag, but nobody'd ever rank his intellect with defectives. Some of the other kids have crashed and burned already. A net-zero for Dynasty: Yeay?
Life may be unfair (since nobody agrees on the word or even its possibility) - but we needn't continue to institutionalize the perpetuation of leveraged advantage: 'rich' has been shown to produce the mentality of the MBA, the PHB and the Suited Ones who always choose Doze. And Stay that Course. And make DRM (while pouring their mine tailings all over W VA - freebie for Beep.)
Rest case, for the nonce. But the case won't rest long, generally, I wot. Especially if the US goes more tits-up and sooner than even the pessimists imagine today.. what with those pesky random planetary matters trumping all that Econ theory:
You remember, dontcha: 'Perpetual Growth' - the mantra of every IPO..? and its largest success story is the perpetual-growth called cancer.
Ed:oyTps
![Expand](/static/images/plus.png)
Edited by Ashton
Nov. 6, 2006, 12:46:22 AM EST
|
Post #272,349
11/6/06 2:43:55 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
What's wrong with capital-accumulation?
I'd have thought that one of the hallmarks of a free society is the right to do with your stuff and money as you please within legal bounds.
That involves giving it to who you like, when you like.
Peter [link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal] [link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes! [link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
|
Post #272,354
11/6/06 7:27:20 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Society has costs that have to be borne by someone.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=219654|#219654] cites TR: "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.\ufffd The wealthy individual needs to pay for the \ufffdprotection\ufffd that the State provides for his or her property - a military force that defends private property from foreign threat and a legal system/police force that protects private property from domestic theft. Roosevelt is echoing Adam Smith\ufffds observation in the Wealth of Nations: \ufffdIt is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of valuable property can sleep a single night in security.\ufffd
Like all of the other members of the estate tax Mount Rushmore club, Roosevelt had no intentions of taxing small estates. \ufffdIt is most desirable to encourage thrift and ambition, and a potent source of thrift and ambition is the desire on the part of the breadwinner to leave his children well off. This object can be attained by making the tax very small on moderate amounts of property.\ufffd Roosevelt\ufffds estate tax was aimed at enormous fortunes like those of the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Astors and Morgans. Excessive capital accumulation is bad for society. Consider Microsoft. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #272,355
11/6/06 8:01:18 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
50% of the costs are borne by less than 2% of the people
dont you think some of the freeloders could get off their ass and contribute something besides jail fodder? thanx, bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #272,357
11/6/06 8:12:46 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Re: Society has costs that have to be borne by someone.
That's why we tax the living fuck out of the working man, it seems.
I, for example, pay \ufffd1-ish for a litre of fuel. 75% of that is tax.
I am taxed at approximately 40 pence in the pound, all things considered.
And when I buy a house, I will pay tens of thousands of pounds in stamp duty, for the privilege of spending many thousands of pounds on a house.
Inheritance tax is, quite simply, the final insult.
If government cannot afford to work with the tax income from living people, then I humbly suggest they get their house in order, stop spending money on stupid wars that have no bearing on the security of our nation, and don't do things like \ufffd750 million of our money on the Millennium Fucking Dome and other idiotic white elephants of a similar ilk.
There's billions of pounds sloshing around that's been extracted from the populace that simply gets pissed away by the state. Make them spend THAT properly.
An article with which I agree is in a comment replying to this one (it's a bit long).
(As for the "we need to control the rich people" thing - well, it's pointless because they simply employ expensive accountants in order to arrange their money in such a way that they're untouched. So you piss off the tiddlers (aka voters) and don't affect the big fish.)
Peter [link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal] [link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes! [link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
|
Post #272,358
11/6/06 8:13:05 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Consider Microsoft?
Why? It's a company. They sell a lot of stuff. They got there illegally. They have a lot of money.
If they'd got to where they are legally, what would be the case? They'd still be sat on top of a large amount of cash (and getting larger every year) and they'd still pay sod-all tax, relatively speaking, because of their vast army of elite assault recon accountants.
Peter [link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal] [link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes! [link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
|
Post #272,359
11/6/06 8:16:06 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Re: Society has costs that have to be borne by someone.
[link|http://conservativehome.blogs.com/100policies/2006/08/matthew_elliott.html|http://conservativeh...thew_elliott.html]
Matthew Elliott and James Frayne: "Abolish Inheritance Tax"
Matthew Elliott is Chief Executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance and James Frayne is Campaign Director
> Policy summary
The abolition of inheritance tax.
> Policy explanation
Inheritance tax is currently levied at a massive 40 percent on estates worth more than \ufffd285,000. This currently affects around 1.5 million households. However, the Halifax have projected that by 2020 the tax will affect 4.2million households if the threshold continues to rise very slowly at a time when house prices are rising steadily. The tax raises around \ufffd3.6 billion a year.
We believe that inheritance tax should be abolished. It is not simply a tax on the rich (who can and do employ expensive accountants to come up with ways of dodging it) but affects ordinary families. It is immoral because it forces people to pay tax on their possessions, having already paid huge amounts of tax throughout their lives.
> Political risks and opportunities
Contrary to what many in Westminster seem to believe, inheritance tax is an issue that concerns ordinary people across the country. The polls clearly show that people are opposed to it. According to a Populus poll for the BBC in March, people disagreed by 73-25 percent that inheritance tax was a "fair way" for the Government to raise money. The poll also revealed that over 40 percent of those questioned had had to take inheritance tax into account recently in their own lives. This reflects two things above all:
(a) people understand the obvious immorality of what amounts to "double taxation"; and (b) it is not seen as a "tax cut for the rich" - ordinary people are being hit by it.
A commitment to getting rid of inheritance tax would show the Party understood the concerns of ordinary middle class families and that it its agenda was driven by wanting to make life "fair" for people. The abolition of inheritance tax should form part of a wider campaign to reduce the tax burden on families - a campaign which should (like the Lib Dems) commit to changing the thresholds at which the various tax rates kick in, and reducing the basic rate of tax.
Of course there is always some "risk" in announcing any policy. Here the risk lies in what message abolishing inheritance tax says about the Party's priorities at a time when the Party has been actively and explicitly briefing that it was moving away from tax as an issue because it does not fit the new "brand". It will require a significant change in the tone of the Party's campaigning and a clear briefing that the Party sees the issue of tax as an integral part of its compassionate conservative agenda - for example, because "reducing the tax burden on ordinary families will make life easier for them and give them the money to spend on their own priorities". On the issue of inheritance tax specifically, whilst the public are opposed to it anyway, it would be better if, like in the US, the tax became publicly known as the death tax (which is essentially what it is).
> Questions for ConservativeHome readers
* How should the issue of tax be brought back into the Conservative "brand" given the Party's clear briefing that it has been excluded? * What other high-profile tax cuts should be announced at the same time to minimise the ability of the Government to say it will mostly affect Southern voters? * Would it be better to begin the process of abolition by raising the threshold massively?
> Costs
It is always dangerous to get into the game of "costing" tax cuts because tax cuts have "dynamic effects" - they create a "rising tide" which boosts the economy as a whole and leads to revenues holding up (look at Australia, Ireland, the US and elsewhere). However, on a "static" analysis, the abolition of inheritance tax would "cost" \ufffd3.6 billion - the amount the tax currently raises. Given that the European Central Bank estimates that the British Government wastes over \ufffd80 billion a year, the figure is relatively trivial.
Peter [link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal] [link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes! [link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
|
Post #272,360
11/6/06 8:49:01 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Struck a nerve, did I?
:-)
I think I've plowed this ground before, but to briefly recap. My views are:
1) Vast accumulated wealth is bad for society. It gives too much power over long periods of time to families. It removes incentives for following generations to create new wealth (they instead spend their time protecting what Great Grandpa created). It helps create an aristocracy of wealth in a country that is supposed to be egalitarian.
2) Those who have vast fortunes (the top fraction of 1%) are in a much better position to pay a fair share of the costs of society than someone in, say, the bottom 25% of incomes. The rich have much more invested in the society than the poor, as TR pointed out, so they should be willing to pay more to help lift society as a whole.
3) In the US, very few estates are taxed as it is, yet it's an important source of revenue for the Federal government. If inheritance taxes are abolished, that money has to come from somewhere.
4) Few, in the US anyway, are talking about some sort of leveling tax that cedes huge fortunes directly to the US Treasury. That's certainly not what I'm looking for. I think a graduated rate peaking at something like the top marginal Federal Income Tax rate would be fair; kicking in at say $5M or $10M or $50M or so.
I don't see inheritance taxes as "double taxation" and I don't see it as unfair. We can argue about what level of estate should be taxed, and we can argue about the rate, but I think the idea of an estate tax is a good one and it should be maintained.
I don't find arguments like, "The rich have lawyers and accountants so they can get out of it, so no-one should have to pay it" to be persuasive. Tighten the loopholes, don't throw out the tax. We don't abolish sales taxes because people don't pay them at yard sales, or don't pay them when they visit their drug dealer, for example.
My $0.02.
Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #272,361
11/6/06 9:02:15 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Re: Struck a nerve, did I?
:-) I think I've plowed this ground before, but to briefly recap. My views are: 1) Vast accumulated wealth is bad for society. It gives too much power over long periods of time to families. It removes incentives for following generations to create new wealth (they instead spend their time protecting what Great Grandpa created). It helps create an aristocracy of wealth in a country that is supposed to be egalitarian. That will always exist on some scale in any society where some people have more stuff than other people. You cannot legislate or tax it away. Well, you can; we call it "North Korea". 2) Those who have vast fortunes (the top fraction of 1%) are in a much better position to pay a fair share of the costs of society than someone in, say, the bottom 25% of incomes. The rich have much more invested in the society than the poor, as TR pointed out, so they should be willing to pay more to help lift society as a whole. The rich, generally speaking, have much more invested offshore than the poor. In fact, your paragraph here is positively socialist; I thought the "American Way" was "Pay Your Way"? 3) In the US, very few estates are taxed as it is, yet it's an important source of revenue for the Federal government. If inheritance taxes are abolished, that money has to come from somewhere. In the UK, a paltry \ufffd3.6B was raised from inheritance tax last year - the square root of fuck all, in government accountancy terms. By contrast, some \ufffd80B was wasted by the government. What's that about tails, dogs and the wagging thereof? 4) Few, in the US anyway, are talking about some sort of leveling tax that cedes huge fortunes directly to the US Treasury. That's certainly not what I'm looking for. I think a graduated rate peaking at something like the top marginal Federal Income Tax rate would be fair; kicking in at say $5M or $10M or $50M or so. I don't see inheritance taxes as "double taxation" and I don't see it as unfair. We can argue about what level of estate should be taxed, and we can argue about the rate, but I think the idea of an estate tax is a good one and it should be maintained. It's double taxation (a tax on stuff just cuz) whether you see it as that or not. I don't find arguments like, "The rich have lawyers and accountants so they can get out of it, so no-one should have to pay it" to be persuasive. Tighten the loopholes, don't throw out the tax. We don't abolish sales taxes because people don't pay them at yard sales, or don't pay them when they visit their drug dealer, for example. What have informal yard sales and illegal narcotics transactions got to do with sales tax?
Peter [link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal] [link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes! [link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
|
Post #272,364
11/6/06 9:45:19 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
please prove point one
I need names of families that have been rich longer than 200 years that are still rich. I think you will find its wealth to welfare in 4 generations for the most part. thanx, bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #272,375
11/6/06 10:45:17 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Why 200 years?
Consider the [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_family|Rockefellers] and the [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du_Pont_family|DuPonts] and the [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderbilt|Vanderbilts] to name just 3 prominent families. They still count many millionaires, through inheritance, (some millionaires scores of times over) a hundred or more years after the fortune was built.
Inheritance taxes didn't seem to harm them too much.
Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #272,388
11/6/06 12:05:11 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Now explain why your examples
rule our country aristocratically and also why they cannot decide how to disburse their wealth to the poor without government intercession. thanx, bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #272,391
11/6/06 12:36:07 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
And ask Carnegie about giving back
Maybe Bill Gates will build some libraries.
Beside Bill...the government is way better qualified to decide how to spend your money when your dead than your wife and children are, ya know?
(I don't really need the sign, do I?)
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #272,449
11/6/06 8:54:00 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Thing about Carnegie
I heard him discussed on the radio recently. He believed if he paid his employees more, they would simply spend the money on meat and clothes and alcohol. Much better to keep them in line and give them the things they really need: parks and libraries and colleges. The average American can't be trusted to make important decisions like that.
===
Kip Hawley is still an idiot.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #272,466
11/7/06 8:48:30 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Standard view of society
by a economic mind. An individual, when given choice, will choose to better himself and not society. That is how you get the basic tenants of government (ie to provide for common defense, etc.)
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #272,402
11/6/06 12:59:21 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
I guess I'm not making myself clear.
I do not think the Republic will soon end if the Federal Estate Tax is abolished. (Ben T. and [link|http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec02/democracy_7-17.html|Kevin Phillips] might have a different view.) I think of it primarily as a source of revenue, and a way to help decrease the unproductive accumulation and hoarding of wealth by generations of people.
I don't know the details, and I welcome correction if I'm wrong, but it's my impression that the tax code and especially estate taxes helped cause the creation of things like the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc., that helps to some extent to spread the wealth. Without tax implications breathing down their neck, I don't think that the Gates Foundation would spend the 5% of their assets every year that they're required to do under the law (as they just barely meet the rule 5% now).
I'm trying to present a pragmatic picture of why the Estate Tax is a good idea. I don't like the idea of an aristocracy that persists for generations in the economy or in politics. As is pointed out in [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=272324|Lamb], change is necessary and change is good. I also believe that Andrew Carnegie, for example, would not have done the good he did if he had inhereted his wealth from his father.
The issue for me isn't charity - it isn't that the government knows better how to spend a billionaire's wealth than he does. It's that concentrations of wealth that persist in a family for generations are unproductive. Tax money that they don't pay has to come from others in society - others who often just barely get by themselves.
Investment is important and should be rewarded. But so is working for a living. It seems that over the last 30 years or so the US has rewarded investment - which is often passive income - much more than income earned from work. I think the balance should probably be shifted back a bit.
I think I've about had my say. I'll close with a question for you and Peter:
If the Estate Tax is abolished, what will you use to replace the revenue? For instance, [link|http://www.cbpp.org/3-16-05tax.htm|estimates] are that under current law (no estate tax in 2010, reinstated in 2011), $290 B would be lost to the Treasury by 2015 if the Estate Tax is abolished after 2010 - $72 B in 2015 alone. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the funding can't come from reductions in "waste, fraud and abuse."
Thanks.
Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #272,411
11/6/06 1:32:13 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
I dont think you understand economics very well
. It's that concentrations of wealth that persist in a family for generations are unproductive. Tax money that they don't pay has to come from others in society - others who often just barely get by themselves. do you think they have all of the money under the bed and hidden in closets? That money is used to generate income which is then after paying costs, taxed. The profit is re-invested, then after costs taxed again. Current long term capital gains tax is 2005, the maximum capital gains rates are 5, 15, 25 or 28 percent.per the IRS so on top of sales tax, property tax, tax tax you wish to impose draconian fees on the rich when they die. That is social engineering. Think of all the accountants, lawyers, secretaries, file clerks, janitors, maids, drivers, cooks that you will throw out of work because the person they work for is unproductively wealthy, Sorry I dont by into that.If you barely get by with 40k a year for a family of 4 then you are not paying much income tax anyway so taxing the wealthy on death wont help those folks "who are barely getting by" thanx, bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #272,415
11/6/06 1:39:12 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Re: I guess I'm not making myself clear.
If the Estate Tax is abolished, what will you use to replace the revenue? For instance, [link|http://www.cbpp.org/3-16-05tax.htm|estimates] are that under current law (no estate tax in 2010, reinstated in 2011), $290 B would be lost to the Treasury by 2015 if the Estate Tax is abolished after 2010 - $72 B in 2015 alone. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the funding can't come from reductions in "waste, fraud and abuse." I'll assume no such thing, ta very much. If our ickle gubmint can fuck up to the tune of \ufffd80B a year, I'm sure your fine establishment can manage to arse up \ufffd70B a year.
Peter [link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win] [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal] [link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes! [link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
|
Post #272,392
11/6/06 12:42:54 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Its great to talk about personal freedoms to a point
that point is when you start talking about those "idle rich". They didn't EARN it, and since >I< have to work...they shouldn't be allowed to HAVE it. Your freedom, they say, ends when you die. Then the government gets half, or more.
Dupont gave away millions (billions in today terms) and these areas still today are parks, recreations areas, museums in this area.
Given the mindset of most here...it should have, instead, gone to Washington to be spent on something useful...like a comprehensive federal study of blind albino newts in the new river.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #272,399
11/6/06 12:57:46 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
No - if they gave it away for parks and museums . . .
. . it wouldn't be there for the government to tax when they died. The ones we're after are the "the purpose of wealth is to build more wealth" set.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #272,407
11/6/06 1:08:29 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Right, those whose free choice wasn't the one you wanted;-)
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #272,439
11/6/06 6:25:32 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
No 'free choice'? Exactly!___when the current math + laws
guarantee that fewer and fewer individuals shall control more and more of the aggregated wealth 'of the nation'.
Already: the very-few indeed determine the fate of the 300M. And: the representatives who might alter that fact themselves, are thralls of the Thanes. (not You, Thane) They will not attempt to repair their bogus funding, thus ownership. Period. It's broken, Jim
Only question is if.. we wait until the [yan Tipping Point\ufffd?] madness of the angry-mob renders temporary or permanent anarchy. And with all those keen new hi-tech implements of destruction..
Your freedom to purchase favorable lawmakers-thus-laws ends.. when I wake up and realize that Nobody 'earns' $300M/year except in an oligarchy. They steal it - by any of 100 synonyms.
First: we must get back actual 'representation of the people'; then see if anyone will try voting again. These representatives are not Ours.
If the ballots continue to fail at inducing self-reform of the Purchased nonrepresentatives, as they have to date: there are lots of bullets and testy psychotic Muricans appear to own a huge share of those. Just itchin - else why own so many and fondle them so often?
It's broken. We don't have a lot of years to get back to being a sorta-Republic, y'know? There are today, only barely-peeped primordial forces arrayed against our farces - we'll change or die. Maybe die anyway - but with a whimper, too?
'Libertarian', eh? Is that the same as , I'm Alright, Jack?
|
Post #272,465
11/7/06 8:44:35 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
There is a choice
and "you" can't seem to convince a mass to make that choice.
These are "your" representatives. "You" can't seem to find qualified people to run because "you" are more interested in whether or not they actually did a bong hit in college or snorted powder of a young vixens breasts. (saw 6 campaign adds just now...wanna guess how many talked about issues as opposed to "this guys a schmuck?")
And are you prepared to hand power back to the general populace of which you generally voice a low opinion?
(keep an eye on the quotes)
You thinks its broken. I think its bent but fixable and in its current state the better option than any other yet proposed. And I don't begrudge a man his wealth simply because I don't have it. I know enough that have earned it fairly.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #272,409
11/6/06 1:22:42 PM
8/21/07 6:33:50 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Rich people use more of the commons
Great little read from Bill G's dad.
[link|http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Our-Commonwealth-Accumulated-Fortunes/dp/0807047198|http://www.amazon.co...nes/dp/0807047198] ----------- The reality is, the concept of, "self made", is a myth. One third of the Fortune 400 inherited their super-wealth. A generation got their start with the GI-Bill that allowed college educations without the crushing debt a collegiate experience demands today. Few have not benefited from the public domain. The Hilton family readily explains that their Hilton Hotel empire could not exist outside an essentially peaceful nation, could not exist with the most basic infrastructures that their facilities need like highways, water, and on and on, state and federal programs funded by everyone, so why should not the same, "everyone", get something back, why should wealth become dynastic? Warren Buffet believes society over values what he does, and readily admits that in most countries, after 30 years his skills would yield him little.
The estate tax does not destroy wealth; no children of the wealthy are on bread lines the day after mom and dad pass away. The book does a brilliant job of debunking the myth that family farms are destroyed by estate taxes or that mom and pop businesses close because of the tax.
When the people that are the wealthiest, when those that control more money per person than the vast majority of the nation are telling you a tax should be kept or even increased, it's probably a good time to listen.
[link|http://www.blackbagops.net|Black Bag Operations Log]
[link|http://www.objectiveclips.com|Artificial Intelligence]
[link|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html|Scrutinizer]
|
Post #289,008
7/15/07 11:07:13 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
What's wrong with capital-accumulation?
Nothing on the face of it. But, if taxing wealth, either at death or during your life time, help society than I am all for it. Unlike the WSJ editors, Carnegie believed that "[t]he more society is organized around the preservation of wealth for those who already have it, rather than building new wealth, the more impoverished we will all be."
...
Now, if the Wall Street Journal would prefer to follow Sweden's example by taxing accumulated fortunes year in and year out in lieu of taxing estates only when they're inherited, we are all for it, especially if the revenues are dedicated to providing U.S. citizens with, say, the universal health insurance enjoyed by Swedes.
But, of course, that is not what the WSJ editors have in mind. Today the United States faces the worst inequality since the 1920s and a massive federal budget deficit. So why--even after the CBO has certified that the estate tax does little to hinder the transfer of family farms or small businesses from one generation to the next--do the editors want to repeal it, a move that would favor only the richest of taxpayers with an average income of $978,000? The answer, as Larry Summers suggests, can only be "selfishness."
[link|http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0905miller.html|Source] Maybe Carnegie was ahead of his time and was trying to explain his new concept of Continuous Wealth Building, maybe he just felt everyone needed to be as ruthless as he was, I don't know.
Seamus
|
Post #289,011
7/15/07 11:13:40 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
tax it once is the only fair method, even the freakin mob
understands you should only collect the vig, only governments try to steal the pricipal. thanx, bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #289,024
7/15/07 1:24:32 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Money is taxed many times
Every dollar I have has been taxed some time in the past in another transaction.
In many ways, wealth tax is more fair then sales tax. Sales taxes punish people and businesses that are involved in many step transactions, as the tax imposed at each step accumulates through the whole thing. That is why there are complex VAT taxes in Europe and business tax licenses in the US.
Jay
|
Post #289,035
7/15/07 4:29:38 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
it wasnt your money then was it?
you take money away from people, money itself is an abstract. Taxing people because they have more than you is called stealing. Taxing the profits when the profit happens is called paying your fair share. thanx, bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #289,039
7/15/07 5:33:52 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Bah.
Taxing people because they have more than you is called stealing. Mixing up terms doesn't help the discussion. Stealing is when someone takes something of yours without permission. Taxes are one of the ways we pay for common necessities. When you're dead, the stuff isn't yours any more. :-) Why should investment income or capital gains be taxed differently than wages? Why do some places tax property less when the owner is over 65? Why does marital status impact the taxes we pay? Why do churches not pay taxes? Why aren't we allowed to withhold a portion of our taxes for things we disagree with? Because our representatives have written the rules that way. There are fairness arguments on both sides. For me it comes down to the things I've discussed many times before. Our government requires money for the services we demand (or demanded in the past). Accumulation of vast sums of wealth based on inheritance is bad for society if it goes on too long. It makes more sense for the wealthy to pay more (a higher percentage) than the poor and lower middle class. It makes sense for estates to be taxed when they change hands when they are large enough. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #289,041
7/15/07 6:26:26 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
couple of points
income is income, whether capital gains or wages unless the elderly can stay in their house they will end up in a taxpayer funded nursing home If I am dead its going with me, by my wishes not yours :-) thanx, bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #289,054
7/15/07 10:03:08 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Taxation affects economic development.
Notice that the trend in taxation in recent centuries has been away from taxing captial to taxing transactions. That is why people say the same dollar gets taxed multiple times - not so: most taxation has been event-based for a long time. That dollar gets taxed as it gets paid to you in earnings, then it gets taxed again when you spend it.
It would be interesting to find a proper article about how different taxation stimulates economies. If the tax base (could be) shifted to a wealth tax, rather than income/outoings tax, what would we see change? Prices and income would certainly change if they were untaxed, but then people may be reluctant to acquire capital, because that's taxed, now. Rather than people finding ways to minimise income tax, they'd find ways to minimize owning taxable goods. Would it spur more charitable giving? How do you decide what good are taxable? Would people spend more on service and less on goods?
Could be an interesting intellectual exercise.
Wade.
Is it enough to love Is it enough to breathe Somebody rip my heart out And leave me here to bleed
| | Is it enough to die Somebody save my life I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary Please
|
-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. | · my · · [link|http://staticsan.livejournal.com/|blog] · · [link|http://yceran.org/|website] · |
|
Post #289,171
7/16/07 10:20:42 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Easy
If the tax base (could be) shifted to a wealth tax, rather than income/outoings tax, what would we see change? Corporate execs would get crazy perks. Like free use of the jet, residences in every city they've got a major presence, etc. etc etc. Now this kind of wealth can't be handed down to your kids, and makes execs more likely to want to stick with a company for a while. Hmm, might not be such a bad idea after all.
===
Kip Hawley is still an idiot.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #289,175
7/16/07 11:01:58 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Hmm.
Yabbut the corp would have to pay tax on such things. But I like the idea that it would encourage loyalty. Job recriuters might have to find new jobs...
Wade.
Is it enough to love Is it enough to breathe Somebody rip my heart out And leave me here to bleed
| | Is it enough to die Somebody save my life I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary Please
|
-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. | · my · · [link|http://staticsan.livejournal.com/|blog] · · [link|http://yceran.org/|website] · |
|
Post #289,199
7/17/07 7:03:03 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
I don't like that idea much.
It seems to me that company employees should get their compensation mostly in salary, with some profit-sharing thrown in as an incentive (in the form of stock or cash), and some small fraction in other benefits (a Thanksgiving turkey, deeply discounted merchandise or meals in the company cafeteria, etc.). Businesses shouldn't be providing lodging, entertainment, etc., etc. except in hardship cases (e.g. for branches in foreign lands, etc.).
(Heading off on a tangent...)
The tax system shouldn't be structured to prefer non-salary compensation because it introduces complications and makes things less transparent. What's the use of a corporate a Central Park West apartment decorated with Van Goghs worth? Why shouldn't the owners of the company and the employees benefit just as much from the company's success?
I don't buy the argument that corporate executives need to be paid tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in total annual compensation for a company to be successful. I think the objective evidence is that [link|http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4526.html|executive compensation has almost nothing to do with actual success of the company].
Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #289,066
7/15/07 11:19:18 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
No, but I'm the one paying
If Joe buys something that costs $10 and has a 10% sales tax on top of that, then he has to turn around and sell it for at least $11 when Jane buys it. Jane in turn pays $12.1, the $11 plus the $1.1 in tax she owes. Thus when I want to buy it I'm looking at $13.31 minimum. And that is before anybody makes any money. But more importantly, notice that I in effect paid $3.31 in tax even though the tax rate is 10%. That was what I was saying about sales tax adding up across transactions.
What you are talking about with profits is income tax. Income tax is less vulnerable to the problem above but it has a whole different set of problems that don't hit other forms. The problem with income tax is that people and corporations can do things that reduce or shift the apparent profit around buy manipulating the companies books. Companies often buy other companies simply because the second company has a big tax loss that the first company can use to offset it's profits.
All tax is taking money from somebody to pay for government. Every form has consequences for the economy, and effects people to a different degree.
Jay
|
Post #289,072
7/16/07 3:20:23 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Wasn't yours before you inherited it either, was it?
Taxes seem to be applied to "income", in a broad sense: When you get money, it gets taxed. Why should it not be taxed just because you got it from your dead great-uncle, just for being his great-nephew, in stead of getting it from your employer, just for showing up and looking dumb forty hours a week? In both cases, you're getting money that wasn't yours before; in both cases, you're asked to pay part of it in tax. Perfectly logical and sensible.
Fuck, the only thing more logical and sensible would be to lump it all together -- the wages of work, capital gains of all kinds, inheritance, everything -- and tax the whole shebang at the same rate. Income is income; why should some of it be taxed much less than other kinds? Especially since in most economies, it seems that the kinds of income the well-off are more likely to have -- capital gains and inheritances -- are taxed less than the kinds the less-well-off are more likely to have (wages / salaries, basically). By pure coincidence, I'm suuure...
As for your "stealing" gobbledygook... Well, the less said about that, the better -- for you. (Though it's good to know, if you ever were to become unemployed, you have excellent fallback opportunities: As a spokesdrone for the RIAA, the MPAA, or some other gang^H^H^H^Hassociation of that ilk.)
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
|
Post #289,081
7/16/07 9:12:02 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
If you were willing to flat rate the tax Im with you
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #289,186
7/17/07 2:33:08 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Why should I? WTF does one have to do with the other???
|
Post #289,082
7/16/07 9:55:50 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Cap Gains tas is lower not by coincidence
Its done specifically to encourage people to invest in capital instead of in commodities or other non-productive resources.
And, of course, it is a "rich people" tax because, in general, those people that have the money to make those investments already have money. Shall we have them build big houses and never sell them, or shall we have them invest it in operating businesses to continue to drive the economy?
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #289,085
7/16/07 10:42:12 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
they are already building big houses they cant sell
they cant sit with the money under the mattress, its got to be on the street earning. Now a 5.5% savings account gets the cash to a bank that vigs it out at 10-29% and the economy rolls. Buying stocks is an alternative that will outstrip the banks but if it was taxed as straight income both the savings account and the stocks will still make money. As far as taking the cash out of circulation, the first thing a rich person learns is never touch principal, sitting on assets will dig into the primary pile. thanx, bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #289,185
7/17/07 2:31:52 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Is this *also* a coincidience?
I point out how you ALWAYs come down on the side of Big Biz against Average Joe, you seem to try to say it ain't so and I'm somehow mistaken... Now it looks like you're coming down on the side of Buddy Rich against Average Joe, but I assume I'm only imagining this, too?
I mean, sheesh, man... WTF is it with you? Are you seriously trying to claim you're ALWAYS "just playing Devil's Advocate"? (It seems it hasn't occurred to you that ALWAYS being His advocate amounts to *actually* arraying yourself in His ranks.)
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
|
Post #289,210
7/17/07 8:40:00 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
I'm not coming down on ANY side.
Thats simply the economic truth behind cap gains.
I didn't voice support for it, nor did I voice disdain.
It is what it is.
I already know WTF it is with you. Its been that way around here for years. Glad you could catch up. Have a pow-wow with Ashton for pointers.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|