Tax the rich!!!

[KrazyHorse]

If it was a death tax then it would apply to all those that die.

It's a tax levied on the act of leaving an estate.

If you don't leave an estate when you die then there's no tax.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by GePap
Guys, Vel has entered what I would term his "faith zone" a place were logic and the numbers simply will not reach him. Give it up.

The incredible thing is that it's common sense that rich people stay rich.

[Sava]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If it was a death tax then it would apply to all those that die.

It's a tax levied on the act of leaving an estate.

If you don't leave an estate when you die then there's no tax.

[Geronimo]

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)?

[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=-

[Geronimo]

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=-

whoops. your problem in part is that you assume that the net worth of the poorest of the top 1% would be 1 million. It is quite a bit higher than that I'm sure.

We would need to know what percentage of the population were millionaires and compare their expected cut of native births with new millionaires for the same time period.

[KrazyHorse]

Millionaires (as in 1 million dollars net worth) are not the top 1%

[Berzerker]

Nor are their children after inheritance. We can have many millionaires who die and leave no millionaire behind among their offspring. A millionaire dies leaving behind 3 kids with 5 grandchildren and other relatives. After taxes that money usually gets divided up so we lose 1 person from the millionaire class. On the other hand, we could have some with 100 million or more die and create several millionaires. But the bulk of millionaires are between 1 and 3 million - that's the range we'd find upper middle class folks who die after a lifetime of making middle to upper middle class money.

But I'd agree 1 million probably is not the lowest of the top %1, but I doubt it's much higher. I suspect millionaires make up about 1.5 or 2% of the population but that's just a guess. So if Vel's other numbers are right, it still shows there are more self-made millionaires.

[General Ludd]

I think the average for the top 1% in the USA is 12-15 million.

(Acording to a quick google search)

[Geronimo]

Damnit berz, answer my post just above. You're a self described libertarian aren't you? please, I'm genuinely curious.

[GePap]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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!

[Berzerker]

Geronimo -

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.

You're a self described libertarian aren't you? please, I'm genuinely curious.

Yes.

Gepap -

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.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You're abolutely off.

Almost all of the richest people in your country were born that way.

Socioeconomic mobility exists in the US more than it did in many other societies, but socioeconomic inertia is still the dominant force.

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.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


If I decide to use my money to support someone, what's it to you? It's my money.

Because it's his work.