Text 3447, 159 rader
Skriven 2006-07-06 08:19:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3920.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: <hcooa2pg2rp9eo01kv8f3s58nctrn6ghol@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <jvCdndpuNJADSTvZnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@comcast.com>
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 17:51:01 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:qolla290phc805lmtp152ts0te15pl3d9c@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 22:49:43 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>> <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
><snip>
>> >
>> >Oh? I thought it was his ancestor's money.
>>
>> Nothing is the ancestor's money -- he's dead.
>>
>> Once again, from an economic perspective, the heir is taxing you, and
>> his heirs are, in perpetuity.
>
>Not at all - when Kennedy or Bill Gates goes and the money gets distributed
>to the heirs, I'll not have a single penny less than before.

No, but you're already paying money to Bill Gates -- as much as
several hundred bucks directly and several hundred more at work. And
leaving aside the question of monopoly profits, that's OK, because
Bill Gates took risks and worked hard to make a product you find
valuable. But his (imaginary so far) heirs? They contributed nothing
to what Gates did, yet they're still taking some of your money.
/That's/ what I'm arguing with. The money is no longer an incentive.
It siphons money out of the economy and goes to providing people whose
motivation to work is thereby diminished, just like welfare. Their
ownership of that money, of those investments, works /against/ the
forces that make a market economy work.

> Its not a tax.
>Its not my money.

>> >Ok, so lets see if I understand this:
>> >a) the inheritance tax is to prevent an "american aristocracy"
>> >   I think we can both admit that its failed in this, since we do have a
>> >moneyed "class".
>>
>> Well, the rich found ways around it. And when people find ways around
>> a desirable law, the right thing to do is to fix the law to patch the
>> loopholes.
>
>And oddly, this hasn't happened - not even in 1976 during the last
>"revision".
>Why do you think that is?

One word: because the rich have enormous influence and can buy more.

(Wait, that's more than one word. Oh, well.)

>> But beyond that, I don't think that it's an either-or situation.
>> Merely reducing the rate at which wealth is transmitted can be enough
>> to prevent the creation of a static aristocracy, since in today's
>> world fortunes tend to be split up among multiple heirs and since not
>> all heirs are wise with their money. So while old money wealth remains
>> real, it's outweighed by new money wealth, and the old money families
>> are actually a good deal less influential than they were 50 years ago
>> and progressively losing their perks, e.g., admission to the finest
>> schools.
>
>Sounds like it'd be better to le them keep it. Spending helps grow the
>economy, right?
>:-)

But in many cases it would be more economically productive for others
to spend it, because it would have more of a positive effect on their
ability to contribute to the economy, and because we would spend more
of it.

>And excessive taxes can hurt the economy.
>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0CE4D91039F935A15752C0A964958260


Sure, but the boat tax was a particularly dumb tax, and really, the
issue isn't that simple: the type of tax and economic conditions
matter too, e.g., it may make economic sense to cut taxes during a
recession so people have more money to spend and get the economy
moving again, but when we're threatened by inflation and the deficit
is in the range considered hazardous by economists then it makes no
sense at all.

>> >b) the inheritance tax is designed to prevent "the very talented and
>highly
>> >edicated" from wasting their lives
>>
>> >   And yet you admit that you've seen this happen often enough
>>
>> Again, it isn't completely effective. But note that I've also seen the
>> opposite effect, e.g., a friend who started a business because his
>> lifetime share of the much-diminished family fortune was "only" a $1
>> million trust fund and he needed more money to live the life to which
>> he was accustomed. I don't know how much of that has to do with the
>> inheritance tax -- his family may well have been hit by the original
>> estate tax, but I believe the greatest blow to their family fortunes,
>> including the loss of their bank, occurred during the Great
>> Depression.
>
>So he had inspiration, and better opportunities as a result of the
>inheritance.

>Good deal.

Nah, he prolly would have had to work even harder if he hadn't
received an inheritance.

>> >So its ineffective at achieving those stated aims, and yet it should be
>> >kept?
>>
>> You take what you can get: partially effective is better than not at
>> all.
>
>Regardless of whomever may get hurt in the process, such as being forced to
>sell the items that made the estate so valuable in the first place.

Not something I'm going to worry about when there are working families
living in cars and kids taking classes in janitorial closets and the
retired naval veteran down the street is worried that his wife won't
be able to keep the house when he dies because the property taxes are
too high.

>> Why would that matter? The question I'd ask is who pays the most in
>> /taxes/ compared to /their actual income and capital gains./ Just try
>> to find the answer.
>
>Because, any move to cut taxes, will affect "the rich" because they're the
>ones who pay the most.
>particularly with AMT.

A tax cut can be directed anywhere. If you're going to cut taxes why
not cut them for the middle class and poor, whose after-tax income has
been static while that of the rich has increased by 210%? There's no
economic justification for this, no social justification: it's just
that the GOP leadership favors the rich.

-- 
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)