Text 3288, 396 rader
Skriven 2006-07-04 13:06:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3761.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: <4jlja2tom60easuocstqus9pmb9qgjkd1q@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <thqba2d482iutivqsm0hmuh13fi3b4o73i@4ax.com>
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 20:26:07 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:ffjga295ri9tl9b9rqa2f8u09hv08r4s8u@4ax.com...

>> I daresay most wealthy people who have built up companies received
>> plenty of rewards during their lifetimes.
>
>Largely irrelevent and entirely subjective.  A person may have spent their 
>entire life building up a business and never taken the time to enjoy their 
>success.   You would consider their reward sufficient, they would suggest 
>it's not your place to judge their rewards or their life.  Do you also 
>consider the middle class guy that wants to pass something to his kids as 
>having had enough reward (compared to the poor)?

I'm not sure you understand the nature of wealth. The rich have,
almost by definition, more goods and services than they could possibly
want for their actual value. There is no more reward possible, other
than the miserly masturbatory one of counting one's money. That is not
true of the middle class. Nor have I suggested abolishing all
inheritance. As things now stand, the estate tax doesn't even begin
until an estate is worth $2 million, soon to be raised to $3.5 million
-- and that's after all the trust funds, gifts, expensive schooling,
and what have you. No wealthy person need go to sleep worrying that
the government is going to take so much that his children won't be
wealthy in their own right. As to the middle class, it isn't much
affected by an estate tax that doesn't even apply to estates under $2
million.

>I think there is a fundemental difference of thought in what money is.  You 
>*seem* to think that money belongs to the govt and the govt allows you to 
>keep some of the fruits of your labor as long as it's not too much.  Others 
>believe they earned the money through their labor and pay the govt taxes in 
>order to provide for the services that the govt should be responsible for. 
>If you think that what you work for is yours, many resent the idea of 
>someone else coming along and telling you that you don't have a right to it 
>any more.

I don't think either is true. The government can take all your money,
if it does so in a lawful manner, or it can take none. I would suggest
that in most cases it would be unwise to do either, since people
without money go hungry (taxation in the beleaguered late Roman Empire
was so high that some people were forced to sell themselves into
slavery) while people without government are reduced to savagery.

>I suppose that if my parents died (hopefully not for a long time!) and left 
>me their house and their possessions, I would resent the govt coming along 
>and saying "You don't need anything else... it's too nice for you.  Get 
>out....it's ours."

But they don't.

>Hopefully my parents go out even...not owing and not having surplus.  I hope 
>they get everything they can out of this life because they worked their 
>rear-ends off all of their lives, saved their money, never took 
>unemployement or welfare, paid their taxes, didn't live above their means 
>and still provided a good home for my brother and me.  They helped other 
>people (and were taken advantage of more than once), never tried to hurt 
>anyone and always tried to do the right thing.    Although they aren't 
>wealthy, they live well enough.  You say they've had their rewards in this 
>life (although they started out very humbly); I'd argue they've paid their 
>dues and hopefully spend every cent of their money doing things that make 
>them happy.

What's the difference? And what does it have to do with the estate
tax? I'm not proposing that anyone be deprived of this, or of the
pleasure of knowing that they've provided for their children. The
estate tax never stood in the way of that; it simply reduced the
transfer of dynastic wealth and put it on the same footing as earned
income, which seems to me fair enough.

>> 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."
>
>Why is it so many people are perfectly content to pass wholesale judgement 
>on others?

This from someone who a few posts back called me a Communist?

>You say these people have contributed nothing.  Of course that's 
>not true of everyone.  Even if you assume it's most (which I think you 
>believe but have no way of proving), you would create a tax poilicy based on 
>the presumption of guilt?  Interesting.

Dude, inherited income is by definition unearned, and I propose taxing
inherited income just as we tax earned income. I do not see how that
accomplishes anything beyond putting income for which one doesn't do
anything on an equal footing with income for which one does.

>I don't know anyone that thinks the poor deserve to live in cars.  That's 
>just rhetoric.

Is it? Because there are working families right now doing just that.
They do it because minimum wage is no longer enough to allow them to
pay the rent and the Republican Congress won't raise it.

So sure, I engaged in a rhetorical flourish there, but I did so to
highlight a very real situation -- that the Republicans in Congress
are fighting an increase in the minimum wage, which is no longer
sufficient to elevate a family of four out of poverty, while passing
more and more tax cuts for people who can buy private islands in the
Aegean. "Callous" isn't half the word for it.

>As to "Living off of the labor of others," another way to put that might be 
>giving people jobs.  But if you'd rather have the govt confiscate whole 
>businesses now because you resent the rich, then what happens to the 
>employed?  Is the govt going to own and operate these businesses?

More lies and exaggerations. I'll gladly respond to arguments against
things I've actually said and positions I actually hold.

>>> 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.
>
>All taxation is confiscatory.  It's certainly not optional, and the govt 
>takes it's first bite before you get your check.  It's just a matter of how 
>much.

That isn't how the word is used in this context.

>> 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?
>
>You keep assuming they didn't do anything to earn it. What if the son or 
>daughter worked hard in the family business their whole life?  Is it still 
>fair to tax them so much that they might lose their family business/farm?

Then they were paid for their labor, like anyone else holding the same
position, or with options or grants of stock. If they weren't, they
were cheated by their parents.

>> Apart from clipping coupons, that is. I don't see even a hint of fairness 
>> here.
>
>No, because you always assumes the worst of the rich.  You would even be 
>unfair to some of the rich that might earn their wealtht just so that you 
>could get at those that don't deserve their wealth.

Bullshit. I propose taxing inheritance, which is money people haven't
earned, just like money they do earn. There is no discrimination
against the wage earner in that. In fact, since I accept an
inheritance tax floor, I am still favoring hereditary wealth, if only
for the middle class.

>The problem is that you can't define an absolute for what "fair" is.  You 
>can define what you think is fair, but last time this conversation went 
>around no one could agree on where the line for "rich" started.  100K? 250K? 
>In MN, the state tax assumes that any individual making more than 65K is 
>rich.

Let's not be silly here: "rich" is not an absolute term, nor does it
have to be, and the law does not create a sharp cutoff.

>>>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.
>
>Any by *your* definition of fair, even after paying taxes on it, the govt 
>can still come along and take whatever it wants to.  By your definition, 
>there is NO time in which a person can work, earn money and say "This money 
>is mine. I can keep it, spend it, or give it to my kids because I earned 
>it."  Your definition of fair is "I worked 80 hours a week, had a large 
>chunk taken out in taxes, pay gas taxes, property taxes, state taxes, sales 
>taxes...and if the govt wants to they can take as much of the rest as they 
>want to because I don't have a right to actually own anything."

Sorry, but yes, the government has the right to tax you. If it didn't,
government would close down as it just did in New Jersey and we'd
devolve to savagery. This is elementary common sense and it has
nothing whatsoever to do with a fair inheritance tax.

>That goes along with the Supreme Court voting to take a house because they 
>want to give it to a private hotel builder too.  They didn't even have to 
>die to get their property taken away.  Funny, I thought this country was 
>partially founded on the idea of private property.

The Court merely applied what is in the Constitution. If they hadn't,
it would become impossible for government to take land for private
development that serves the public good. Think of what that would
mean: No railroads. No Lincoln Center. But really, that matters
little:

"Just as we decline to second-guess the City's considered judgments
about the efficacy of its development plan, we also decline to
second-guess the City's determinations as to what lands it needs to
acquire in order to effectuate the project. "It is not for the courts
to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the
size of a particular project area. Once the question of the public
purpose has been decided, the amount and character of land to be taken
for the project and the need for a particular tract to complete the
integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislative branch."
Berman, 348 U. S., at 35-36.

"In affirming the City's authority to take petitioners' properties, we
do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail,
notwithstanding the payment of just compensation.21 We emphasize that
nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further
restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States
already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the
federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as
a matter of state constitutional law,22 while others are expressed in
state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon
which takings may be exercised.23 As the submissions of the parties
and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent
domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of
legitimate public debate.

"This Court's authority, however, extends only to determining whether
the City's proposed condemnations are for a 'public use' within the
meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because
over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an
affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the
relief that they seek."

It is everything a conservative and constructionist could ask, saving,
of course, that it doesn't favor private property, and Republican
"principles" such as their oft-stated opposition to legislation from
the bench and their support of literal interpretations of the
Constitution go out the window the moment something doesn't favor
private property.

BTW, the area in question is an abandoned joke: I live a couple of
blocks away from it.
..
>>>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.
>
>You're very free at giving away other's freedoms.  Apparently not even at 
>death do you allow a person the freedom to distribute their own wealth.

Dude, they have to pay taxes when they're alive and it matters. Why
would it matter more when they're dead?

>The issue for many is... does the fed govt have to do everything it is 
>doing...or can and should some of be done just as well or better at a 
>state/local and/or private level?  That question started at the same time 
>the country did, and how each person answers that is part of how they define 
>their own politics.

That's OK, but what does it have to do with my argument, which is that
heirs should be taxed on the money they get just as working people are
taxed on the money they get?

>Just because a person might believe that the fed govt might not be the best 
>place to set up some programs does not necessarily mean that people with 
>that view do not believe those programs should exist.  Likewise, a person 
>that believes the collecting money and power at the federal level does not 
>necessarily mean they want to institute socialism.  The rhetoric on both 
>sides is equally extreme and equally unfair.

I'm afraid I have to take issue with that: I didn't call you a
Communist, and I didn't accuse you of being a resentful loser who
wants to increase taxes because he hates the rich. I did agree with
Buffett's classification of wealthy heirs as welfare dependents, but I
see no reason to think that inaccurate: they differ only from their
less fortunate counterparts in that they take more and dress better,
and I think it's important to make that point, lest we let class and
racial prejudices govern our moral assessments.

>> 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.
>
>You continue to assume that they don't work.   It's ok...we've gone through 
>this before and our experiences differ... but you treat it as fact and I 
>know from experience it is not always so.  You would condemn all for the 
>actions of some.

I have never maintained that all heirs don't work. That would be
ridiculous: some do and some don't.

>As to the rich paying taxes like working people do, I absolutely agree with 
>that.  I also believe that we should eliminate the loopholes.  It's when 
>someone wants to set up a different set of rules for the rich (either for or 
>against them) that I get uncomfortable.

Where's the different set of rules here? I'm merely proposing that
they pay taxes on unearned income just as they would on earned income.
I also believe that the more we make the more we should pay to the
common good, simply because we've received more and because we can
afford more and because it's compassionate and because it's in the
public interest and because, really, we have no choice -- the poor
can't afford to pay more and neither can many in the middle class.

BTW, you say that you're uncomfortable treating the rich differently
from everybody else. Does that extend to the fact that the rich
receive better schooling, that the rich don't have to pay meaningful
fines, that the rich get bigger houses and nicer clothes, that the
rich get better lawyers? Wealth is not without benefits, some of them
unearned, and I think that has to be recognized, particularly insofar
as those benefits are unearned rather than rewards for hard work.

>Ultimately it's a bit of a moot point anyway.  People will find a way to 
>shelter their income.  The harder it is to do here, the more likely they are 
>to take the money offshore.
>
>The interesting thing is that I started out (and still believe) that a 
>parent should not leave their kids too much money.  I would prefer that the 
>wealthy do the Buffet/Gates approach than give the money to their kids.  I'm 
>just uncomfortable when someone wants to use the power of the govt to take 
>the money whenever it wants.
>
>One irony is that with all of the complaints (some justified, some not) 
>against the Bush adminstration, there is still the desire to concentrate 
>more power & money at the federal level.  The more corrupt you think the 
>current administration is, the more I would think you'd want to keep power 
>and control away from it.

My philosophy is that if something can be done better by private
enterprise, it should be, but if government can do something better,
it should be done by government. There's no philosophy behind it: it's
purely practical. Thus I accept the fact that the government has to
run the military, despite the fact that military procurement is
notoriously corrupt, but I'd rather see more of our transportation
network in private hands, since experience tells me that private
enterprise can generally do a better job with it. I'd rather see
private than public colleges, but that would require endowments that
don't exist. But let's face it -- most of the Federal Government would
still be there if we stripped it to the bone, because its main
expenditures -- the military, social security, Medicare and Medicaid
-- are best made by government. Rather than crucifying government, we
should focus on the pork barrel programs and special interest
provisions that have spiraled out of control -- and that means a) the
press and electorate has to pay attention to and reject them, rather
than rewarding legislators for the boondoggles they bring to their
locality and b) the electoral system has to be reformed to reduce the
influence of special interest money on legislators and to eliminate
the disproportionate power of small states, which in practice
translates into boondoggles while real needs go unaddressed.

>Finally, I think our tax system needs to be redone.  GE had to file a tax 
>return of 24,000 pages.  Any tax system that requires that (and the inherent 
>waste that is involved in that) is seriously flawed at multple levels of 
>both business and the govt.

It's full of tax shelters and special interest provisions. Keep in
mind that not even Reagan could get rid of the mortgage deduction.

If it were up to me, the form for personal income taxes for those who
aren't self-employed would contain the following lines:

1. Report your total income from wages, interest, and capital gains.

2. How many people does this income provide for? Include you, your
spouse if filing jointly, and minor children or other dependents with
their social security numbers.

That's it.

-- 
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)