Text 3147, 200 rader
Skriven 2006-07-03 13:53:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3620.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Dennis \(Icarus\) to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * *
*
* * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *
-----------------------------------------------
@MSGID: <164b8$44a869f8$18d64cf6$993@KNOLOGY.NET>
@REPLY: <vreba219a0fmb2ginedquf4ng3amh4r79f@4ax.com>
"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffjga295ri9tl9b9rqa2f8u09hv08r4s8u@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 11:28:05 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:oamfa2dmc22bf3j334sodvn5f3sdbfjhnh@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 14:37:37 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
> >> <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:A-udnRG9z7NAFDvZnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >>>>
> >>>> "Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:iqrba29i44s3v55fn0e9k7tvv1i729d165@4ax.com...
> >>>> > On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 03:28:28 GMT, Kurt Ullman
<kurtullman@yahoo.com>
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > "I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people
talking
> >>>> > about the debilitating
> >>>> > effects of a welfare society. At the same time, they leave their
kids
> >>>> > a
> >>>> > lifetime and beyond
> >>>> > of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a
trust
> >>>> > officer. And instead
> >>>> > of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."
> >>>> >
> >>>> > - Warren Buffett
> >>>>
> >>>> True...but it's with their money rather than mine. :)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>I still don't see whats wrong with leaving one's kids wealth.
> >>
> >> Same thing that's wrong with welfare, I think, but on a much larger
> >> scale and with less justification (since no one needs $1 billion to
> >> avoid hunger).
> >
> >I think you need to divide the estate tax into several issues.
> >
> >1) As a means of generating revenue.
> >
> >I think this is a fairly small amount in the grand scheme of things.
>
> According to a search I made, "when the associated $225 billion in
> higher interest payments on the debt are taken into account, the total
> cost of repealing the estate tax for a decade would be nearly $1
> trillion."
>
> http://www.cbpp.org/3-16-05tax.htm
And as I said, the financial and insurance industry opposes repeal
http://www.naifa.org/advocacy/actionalerts/20060601_estate_tax.cfm
389 billion from 2006 to 2016 (estimated, of course)
38.9 billion average per year, in a budget of 2 trillion or so.
Here;s an idea - Congress can spend less.
Ooohhhh!
>
> >2) As social engineering.
> >
> >As Josh points out there is plenty of evidence of some rich people giving
> >their kids trust funds and they grow up to be unproductive, spoiled
brats.
> >Seeing the excesses of some of the rich that act this way can certainly
> >cause many (if not most) people to cringe in disgust. Still, I am
reluctant
> >to base tax law on a gut reaction to rich, spoiled brats.
> >
> >Freedom includes the right to be an a$$hole too (as long as you're not
> >violating the law doing it).
> >
> >To Josh's larger point...trying to prevent a perpetuating wealthy
class... I
> >understand the desire, although I think it's pretty clear that the effort
> >has failed.
>
> To the extent it has, it's because the hereditary rich found ways
> around it (e.g., trust funds), paid off politicians, and ducked out of
Last round of transfer tax reform was in 1976.
Gosh, which party held congress then?
<snip>
>
> >You should be able to start a company, build it up over a lifetime and
leave
> >it to your kids...because that's very likely the reason that you worked
so
> >hard in the first place...to provide a good life for your family and a
> >better life for your kids. To remove this ability would be equivalent to
> >telling someone they've worked their life for the govt, and the govt just
> >happen to let you benefit a little while along the way.
>
> I daresay most wealthy people who have built up companies received
> plenty of rewards during their lifetimes. But beyond that, I find it
> curious that people are so worried about people who received a boon
> worth /over $3 million/ when the Republicans just blocked an increase
> in the minimum wage, which isn't even adequate to lift a family out of
> poverty. Justify it how you like, I think it's just a matter of "the
> hereditary rich and powerful deserve the right to live off the labor
> of others, despite having contributed nothing, but the families of
> hard working poor people deserve to live in cars."
So why not just make the minimum wage $100,000.00 a year?
:-)
>
> > If you inherit a company (a dry cleaner, a farm, a car dealership, etc.)
> >you may still work your rear-end off because the business means something
to
> >you and you want to pass it on to your kids. If the average person
should
> >have that right, the rich should too.
>
> They do: no one is suggesting confiscatory taxation. And I don't see
> how a comparison to the average person is valid here: the average
> person gets taxed on the money he earns. Why should a rich heir not
> get taxed on the money he gets but did nothing to earn? Apart from
> clipping coupons, that is. I don't see even a hint of fairness here.
Because gains in stock do not happen until they're sold.
The gains in bonds do not happen until they're redeemed.
Money in banks accrue interest, which is taxed.
Dividends gained through stocks are taxed.
>
> >To point to some specific examples of the rich that may or may not
"deserve"
> >their wealth and base policy on that is as unfair as pointing to
individual
> >abuses in welfare as an excuse to abolish it.
>
> Nobody /deserves/ to inherit money. Inherited money is, by definition,
> something one's ancestors earned.
Just another way of parents providing for their kids (or whomever else
they're leaving the money).
>
> >There is a degree of social engineering that I am personally
uncomfortable
> >with. I think the govt should set and enforce rules that we all have to
> >follow, but I dislike the idea that the govt bases policy and laws on how
we
> >*should* behave or how successful we are allowed to be. There is a loss
of
> >freedom in this.
>
> There are times when we have to lose freedom; among them is tax time,
> because some things can only be accomplished as a group, and without
> taxes, the country couldn't exist. I argue only that the descendants
> of those who made great fortunes should pay taxes on the money they
> receive just like working people do. If we're going to have taxes we
> shouldn't favor those who don't work.
And you know they don't work because.....?
:-)
If they were working in the family business, then they shoudl still be
taxed, even though they have jobs?
>
> >>>I do find it interesting that Buffet chose to give the money to provate
> >>>charities, rather than just giving it to the government.
> >>
> >> Guess he didn't want to pay for $100 million bridges to uninhabited
> >> islands in Alaska . . .
> >
> >Or for the "Big Dig."
>
> That at least /tried/ to do something . . .
>
Dennis
.
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
* Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)
|