please prove point one

Post #272,364 by boxley 11/6/06 9:45:19 AM Reply	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 by Another Scott 11/6/06 10:45:17 AM Reply	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 by boxley 11/6/06 12:05:11 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 11/6/06 12:36:07 PM Reply	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 by drewk 11/6/06 8:54:00 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 11/7/06 8:48:30 AM Reply	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 by Another Scott 11/6/06 12:59:21 PM Reply	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 by boxley 11/6/06 1:32:13 PM Reply	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 by pwhysall 11/6/06 1:39:12 PM Reply	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]

Welcome to IWETHEY!