Text 3241, 117 rader
Skriven 2006-07-04 12:38:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3714.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: <6kcja25biildpfpg76nqu9gc3lt89qld2s@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <kurtullman-54586A.23282630062006@news.west.earthlink.net>
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 11:45:37 -0700, Charlie Edmondson
<edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:

>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>>>>And because someone who /works/ for a dollar shouldn't have to pay
>>>>taxes on the money he receives while someone who is /given/ it by
>>>>Daddy does not.
>>>>
>>>>Like Buffett, I find it amusing that the very same people who are so
>>>>vociferously opposed to welfare dependency embrace it when it's
>>>>practiced, on a much larger scale, by the rich.
>>>
>>>Welfare is a government program, right?
>>>Inheritance is not.
>> 
>> 
>> And that makes the former bad and the latter good how?
>> 
>Because that inheritance was earned by a relative and saved to benefit 
>his heirs.  It has ALREADY BEEN TAXED, probably several times as the 
>interest/capitol gains occurred.  So someone took care of his own, 
>without requiring the government to use my money to do it.

Charlie, I hate to disillusion you, but that heir is using /your/
money, down to the umpteenth generation. And he gets that money for
doing nothing.

That's not capitalism, it's aristocracy, and it's what our forefathers
fought to get rid of.

>Now, we can discuss the wisdom of providing for heirs that limits their 
>utility to themselves and others, but that is a whole 'nother 
>discussion.  Such a process usually has one of two effects - either the 
>heir takes it upon themselves to use those funds to better themselves 
>and/or others, or they waste it, thereby NOT passing it on to their 
>heirs so the process becomes self limiting.

And wastes a very talented and highly educated at great expense
generation in the process. I've seen it happen often enough.

>Now, welfare on the other hand, often has the opposite effect. 
>Government is providing support to receipients with the actual purpose 
>that those receiving the support continue to support the government.  As 
>such, it is TO THE GOVERNMENTS SELF INTEREST to have as many beholdent 
>to them as possible, even if they accomplish this by giving people back 
>their own tax money (after they take their cut) to earn there loyalty. 
>Now, this is not just for welfare or food stamps, but has come to apply 
>to social security, disability, and most other government programs.

And the alternative is what, going back to the days when to be poor
was to starve? Didn't work then and it won't work now.

If you /are/ seriously interested in keeping government from buying
votes, take a look at middle class entitlements like the mortgage
deduction, or at the Republican tax cuts for the rich.

>So, on the one hand, people become independent of government support, 
>instead providing more in taxes than they take.  You feel this is bad.

Whether the money goes through the government or not is immaterial. It
comes from the same source, the pockets of the public.

>On the other hand, people become dependent on government support, 
>receiving more or as much as they provice in taxes.  You feel this is good.
>
>You are obviously therefore a democrat, and have so stated.

This is rather profoundly twisted. Social Security, for example, is an
insurance program. Welfare, small potatoes that it is, is a program
originally designed to help those in need and, in particular, their
children; it is a charitable program. That they are government
programs is neither here nor there, except insofar as participation is
mandatory, as some things must be in any nation.

-- 
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)