Tax the rich!!!

[Geronimo]

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]

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.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid...oh, I dunno...reality hasn't gotten in your way before...why start now, right?

-=Vel=-

*Kidicious half smiles out of the side of his mouth.

[Berzerker]

chegitz -

"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 -

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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 )

[Velociryx]

and while I'm digging around in the OT archive, Kid (which is HUGE, by the way), how 'bout filling us all in.....what are your thoughts NOW in terms of setting up this grand, o-so-just utopia?

How will dissenters be treated? Those who don't want to part with their hard earned gains to give them over to you like good little reds?

What will you do with them?
How will the "Watchers" go about their daily activities?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
and while I'm digging around in the OT archive, Kid (which is HUGE, by the way), how 'bout filling us all in.....what are your thoughts NOW in terms of setting up this grand, o-so-just utopia?

How will dissenters be treated? Those who don't want to part with their hard earned gains to give them over to you like good little reds?

What will you do with them?
How will the "Watchers" go about their daily activities?

-=Vel=-

What does all this have to do with what you accused me of saying in previous threads?

[Velociryx]

Cos I strongly suspect your views on dealing with dissent haven't changed much, given that your views on the rest of the system haven't changed much....

-=Vel=-

[Berzerker]

UR -

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.

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.

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 -

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 -

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.

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...

They are, after all, no more dead now than they were the day after they died.

Yes, but their contracts are long dead.

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...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Cos I strongly suspect your views on dealing with dissent haven't changed much, given that your views on the rest of the system haven't changed much....

-=Vel=-

What kind of dissent are you talking about?

[Berzerker]

How will dissenters be treated? Those who don't want to part with their hard earned gains to give them over to you like good little reds?

Death so we can tax them again...no... off to Siberia...umm...I mean... Alaska...

[Velociryx]

Oh c'mon kid, don't play dumb....it's not terribly becoming.

Dissent!

People who disagree with your plan for the great utopia. People who are unwilling to let you come in and snoop around their house to take inventory of "their ****e" as you put it before, or let you make off with it for the good of the borg collective.

What will your methodology for handling such folk be?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Oh c'mon kid, don't play dumb....it's not terribly becoming.

You're the one who is playing dumb. I don't propose a dictatorship. Justice will be decided by the people.

Originally posted by Velociryx
Dissent!

People who disagree with your plan for the great utopia.

That's right. This is dissent. The following is not.

Originally posted by Velociryx
People who are unwilling to let you come in and snoop around their house to take inventory of "their ****e" as you put it before, or let you make off with it for the good of the borg collective.

This is disobedience. It's similar to not paying taxes in a capitalist system. Personally, I think there should be something to deter people from obstructing business like this. What kind of obstruction are you thinking of?

[Berzerker]

Oh, Geronimo, I didn't mean to imply what Europeans did to Indians was justified. Had I lived back then I sure would have opposed what happened just as I would have opposed slavery. Freedom of association and contracts are important aspects of my ideology... Hell, I probably would have been off finding ways to warn and arm Indians.

[Berzerker]

I don't propose a dictatorship. Justice will be decided by the people.

The majority can never decide to be unjust?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker


The majority can never decide to be unjust?

Yes they can. You need laws to protect minorities too.