Text 3222, 270 rader
Skriven 2006-07-04 12:35:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3695.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <f98ja2t3699vr26orce9u5tuvk16bpajt7@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <jvCdndpuNJADSTvZnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 22:15:27 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:gesga2dedbfnlognlrcmhickoep9hds8ke@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 19:15:27 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>> <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:12mga2lb49rec8oc9k848ipkhl9un3eo7r@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 14:29:10 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>> >> <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:adsfa29jkmu0l0pkr74nja1fugm21v7n3j@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 09:52:25 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>> >> >> <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:cemfa2pl698vnkdpfkl6hsjrm4qedts632@4ax.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Er, no: estate taxes were introduced to avoid the creation of an
>> >> >> >> American aristocracy -- people who took a disproportionate
>> >percentage
>> >> >> >> of the goods and serves the nation produces without making a
>> >> >> >> commensurate contribution.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Yeah, good thing we had that, otherwise we'd have folks like the
>> >> >> >Kennedy's.....wait a sec....
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Oh, sorry -- I forgot that if George Washington was an American, all
>> >> >> Americans are George Washington.
>> >> >
>> >> >My point was that, regardless, we do have an "American aristocracy".
>> >> >So it seems the inheritance tax was as effective in that as are many
>> >other
>> >> >government programs :-)
>> >>
>> >> Apparently, it was effective when it was first enacted -- actually
>> >> wiped out some great fortunes. But the rich soon found ways to cheat
>> >
>> >And you find this to be a good thing, I see.
>> >Guess it wasn't one of your families' money, so what the heck.
>>
>> Circa 1960, my family's assets were about $1-1/2 million in land and a
>> business. Rather than seeing it developed, my grandfather sold the
>> land for $400,000 to a charitable organization: $100,000 each went to
>> my father and aunt, who had each been given 1/4 of the land, and my
>> grandparents kept $200,000 for their retirement. In each case, the
>> money was taxed, presumably as a realized capital gain. I'm not
>> complaining.
>
>So it wasnt one of your families fortunes that was wiped out.

Well, let's see: we gave away $1.1 million, about 3/4 of what we had,
and then paid taxes on the remainder. I'd say we did our duty, and I
see no cause to feel sympathy for those -- many with much more -- who
had to pay inheritance taxes.

>> >> I disagree. Wealth consists of ownership. Own a business, and you get
>> >> a slice of the labor that people put into that business, a slice of
>> >
>> >Uhmmm...thats because the employer pays for their labor.
>>
>> Nope. It's because the owners own a piece of paper, and that piece of
>> paper gives them a slice of the company's profits.
>
>And the owner pays the employee for the labor via the paycheck.

Which means nothing: we're talking about profits.

>> >> what people pay to purchase its products. Own a bond, and you own a
>> >
>> >Because I'm providing a service - good location, convenient hours, or
>just
>> >having what folks want.
>>
>> >> debt -- the right to receive interest and principal. In effect, wealth
>> >
>> >Becuase they get to use my money (for whatever) and I don't
>>
>> Money is nothing, just pieces of paper. What matters here is what that
>> piece of paper represent.
>
>So if money is nothing, why're you complaining about folks who are wealthy?

Because what matter is what those pieces of paper represent -- the
right to draw upon the resources of others.

>> Now if you built up that business, if you took risks and worked hard,
>> you reserve to reward for its success. That's common sense and it's an
>> important part of our economic system, since it provides incentive.
>
>Yes, it does. Glad you see that.

I'm not arguing against incentive, but rather against it's opposite,
long-term welfare dependency.

>> But if you did /nothing/ to build up that business -- didn't lend it
>> money you'd earned, didn't roll up your sleeves and work at it
>> yourself -- you deserve nothing. Getting some pieces of paper -- money
>> -- from your Dad puts you in precisely the same position as a medieval
>> lord who inherited an estate, and gets money from his tenant farmers
>> because his great-great-great-great grandpappy sent troops. Except
>> that the medieval lord had to work for his living, or the lord next
>> door would appropriate his land. Today's heir is more like the
>> 18th-century aristocrat, a do-nothing who rides about in ever fancier
>> carriages unless the people get tired of it and chop off his head.
>
>However, the tax code does not recognize those who work in the family
>business and those who d soemthing else like, say, go into politics.

It doesn't have to, because the work they actually put into it is
recompensed through wages and other compensation (including,
sometimes, additional ownership).

>> Our forefathers had the good sense to wise up, albeit in lieu of
>> decapitation they sent the lordlings to freeze their butts off in
>> Canada.
>
>Or joined ROTC then, when finding they had a high lottery number, chose to
>reneg on the committment.

Or avoided Vietnam by having Daddy get them into a rich boy's unit of
the National Guard, use his influence to get a coveted pilot's slot
despite having scored poorly on the qualifying exam, took time off to
work on a political campaign, didn't even bother to show up at his new
posting, then lied about it and had the military destroy both the
original records /and/ the microfilmed backups.

Oh, and smeared at least two genuine war heroes, John McCain and John
Kerry.

>> >> allows you get to suck some blood out of the economic activities of
>> >> others whether they like it or not. So it's just like a tax, a tax
>> >> that benefits you.
>> >
>> >You've GOT to be kidding me?!!? Wealth or economic activities are just
>like
>> >a tax?
>> >:-)
>> >But they do have a choice - they dont have to buy at my store, work for
>me,
>> >or sell bonds to me.
>>
>> There's no choice, unless you can buy all your goods at a non-profit
>> organization.
>
>Ahh...so its just capitalism you seem to have a problem with.
>Ok.

That has much the same relationship to a sequitur as a fender has to a
duck.

>> >> That can be justified economically and morally if the ownership is a
>> >> reward for something someone has done -- inventing a new gadget,
>> >> building a railroad, doing without some of the money you've earned so
>> >
>> >Gee, lots of folks had rather nasty things to say about the railroad
>barons
>> >of the 19th century.
>> >Good to see you're saying their wealth was "justified economically &
>> >morally"
>>
>> So I take it you've caught on to my dislike of Bill Gates? I said
>> building a railroad, not bribing politicians and cheating the public.
>
>But they built a railroad though.

And insofar as they built a railroad (or Gates made software) I have
no argument with them.

>> Of course, more than a few great fortunes are the result of just such
>> skullduggery -- Joe Kennedy's bootlegging, say, or Vandemar Bush's
>> illegal trade with the Nazis -- but that makes the estate tax more
>> justifiable rather than less.
>
>Could just charge the crooks - no, better to wait 20-30 or however many
>years after the fact & try to take the money.

>> >> that a company can expand or a neighbor can build a house. But if it
>> >> isn't a reward for something someone has done, then it's just
>> >> parasitism, the legal right to suck money out of the labor of others
>> >> and spend it on oneself. And that's no different from welfare.
>> >
>> >You can believe that, of course, but I do think you're incorrect.
>> >Ex:
>> >Berkshire Hathaway is a holding company, its investments help fund
>> >companiesm which employ people.
>> >These people work & collect a paycheck for providing a service or
>producing
>> >a product that folks want.
>> >Without such investors, the companies either would not exist or would be
>> >markedly smaller than they are now.
>> >
>> >An inventor can be face d with a quandary - neat idea, but no way to
>> >manufacture it, and the banks may not be interested in funding. Enter the
>> >venture capitalist - they're a bit more willing to take a risk, so
>they'll
>> >provide the money in hopes of getting a nice return.  All the VC person
>has
>> >doen is provided money, which of course is what was needed. By your
>> >definition, though, wouldn't the person be a parasite? :-)  Well, maybe
>its
>> >covered by the third item but since its the firms money and not theirs, I
>> >doubt they'd be "doing without".
>>
>> In an ideal market, the return on an investment is a function of risk.
>> Therefore the return on a risky investment is naturally higher than
>> that on a safe one. But from the point of view of average return with,
>
>Yep.
>
>> one hopes, due attention to the risk of ruin formula, there's no
>> difference: having x dollars gives you the right to profit from a
>> certain percentage of the nation's resources. It is that right which
>> I'm questioning -- not insofar as it was earned, but insofar as it was
>> given -- and even then, my proposed solution is not a radical one,
>> insofar as it doesn't confiscate inheritance (for which there are
>> certain positive arguments, all but a couple of which haven't been
>> mentioned here) but merely taxes it at the same rate as earned income,
>
>But its already been taxed - a couple of times, usually.

True -- well, partially true, because I assume the transfer is likely
to consist largely of unrealized capital gains. But it's going to a
new person, which if you think about it, is when we usually tax money.
I think you could make a better case for the abolition of the
corporate income tax, which may be economically counterproductive in
that it penalizes successful companies. (I say may because the
contribution to entrepreneurial endeavors might compensate, at least
in part, for that gap).

>> thus reducing a particularly glaring moral inequality, reducing the
>> budget deficit, and avoiding the negative effects of long-term welfare
>> dependency. And I've seen those effects -- talented friends who,
>> because they don't have to work, don't make the contributions that
>> they otherwise would. It doesn't affect everybody any more than
>
>And that is their choice.

As it is for Joe the Welfare Recipient. Again, the difference? Other
than the fact that Joseph the Heir of a Great Family Fortune gets a
much larger welfare check, thereby emptying our pockets far more
effectively than Joe the Welfare Recipient could ever hope to do?

-- 
Josh

"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
                                                                               
                                      
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)