Text 3175, 71 rader
Skriven 2006-07-03 14:04:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3648.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Kurt Ullman to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <kurtullman-8A9E66.22143802072006@news.west.earthlink.net>
@REPLY: <iqrba29i44s3v55fn0e9k7tvv1i729d165@4ax.com>
In article <qblga2tja24504568956g83e1j82kuu34f@4ax.com>,
 Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >> I'll take this as evidence that you have no substantive response, and
> >> that you aren't familiar with the early history of the estate tax.
> >   Of course I am. It was started in the early 1900s specifically as a 
> >tax to stake a claim that some felt they society was owed because of the 
> >"extra protections" that society allegedly gave to the wealthy.
> 
> >SOrta 
> >ignoring the fact that they also paid more in taxes and also contributed 
> >to society in other ways such as job creation, etc.
> 
> No, the estate tax addressed /inherited/ wealth. Those who inherit
> wealth do not though the act of inheritance contribute to job
> creation.

    Many do, to the extent that they are able to keep the family 
business going or they don't have to pay for insurance, estate planning 
or loans to pay the  taxes. You seem think that inherited wealth just 
magically appears and no one does anything else with it.  Even the trust 
fund babies have to invest it somewhere where it is put to use in 
growing the economy... even if it the entire thing is put into a 
passbook. 


> 
> > It was also premised 
> >on the idea that concentrations of wealth were antithetical to the US 
> >democratic (small "d") aspirations. 
> 
> Right. And that differs from my original statement that "estate taxes
> were introduced to avoid the creation of an American aristocracy" how?
       I merely asked how that worked out. 


> >     No, I asked WHY it should taken out of his control. You did not 
> >even attempt to answer the question. You merely reiterated the part 
> >about death. Why should the government take control of one's money 
> >solely because they die and decide that they get their cut? 
> 
> Dude, he's dead: he no more needs his money than he needs his shoes or
> his watch fob.
    So, that gives the feds a right to come and take it away? It is 
still his money and it was still taxed while he was alive and it should 
still be his to give it away as he sees fit. 

> Hasn't it ever occurred to you that your fellow citizens are asked to
> make any number of sacrifices for you for which they aren't monetarily
> compensated? And that among these is the willingness of people who
> don't even know you, typically young and from modest circumstances, to
> fight and lay down their lives in your defense?
   So somehow the estate taxes directly fund the military now? This is 
an non-sequetor even above your high standards. 
> 
> Even if one accepts the highly questionable premise that one man is
> entitled to a larger slice of this earth and this air and the fruits
> on the trees for something his grandfather did, one cannot take the
> philosophy of greed so far as to deny one's debt to one's countrymen.
        This is a reach...
                                                                               
           
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)