Text 3684, 217 rader
Skriven 2006-07-08 01:02:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4157.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: <uekta29spvdh78kh9qdpr9kakclku6cdtp@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <cemfa2pl698vnkdpfkl6hsjrm4qedts632@4ax.com>
On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 21:44:05 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:hcooa2pg2rp9eo01kv8f3s58nctrn6ghol@4ax.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.
>
>Jsoh, after I've excvhanged my money for the softweare, it became Bill
>Gates' money, and thus he can pass it on to his heirs, give it a way, or
>burn it - that's because...its....his.....money.

Sure. But it's not taxed when it's his money: it's taxed when it goes
to his heirs. Gifts and wages are no different: if Gates paid a kid of
his to do a job for him or gave him a gift larger than the annual
deductible, the heir would have to pay income tax on the money he'd
received.

>> /That's/ what I'm arguing with. The money is no longer an incentive.
>
>It can be - makes it far easier for the person to do what they'd like.

That's precisely the problem. I mean, if everybody could do whatever
they like, who would take out the garbage or feed the pigs?

>> It siphons money out of the economy and goes to providing people whose
>
>Hmm...ok...lets see if I got this.
>Its a valuable part of the economy when it belongs to Bill Gates.
>Immediately when it s transferreed to his heirs, its siphoned completely out
>of the economy like an economic black hole.
>
>I disagree with that. One way that I can see where it'd be out of the
>economy is if its in cash under a mattress.

It siphons money out of the economy when it belongs to Gates, too. The
difference is that it's rewarding Gates for something he's /done,/ for
the work and risks he put into Microsoft. It constitutes incentive.
And not just for Gates: our whole economy works on the principle of
reward for risk and hard work. Decouple reward from work, and you end
up with the motivational problems of socialism or welfare or teenagers
who know that they'll get their allowance even if they /don't/ clean
their room.

>> motivation to work is thereby diminished, just like welfare. Their
>
>It really depends on the person, and their character.

Sure. Some people will work because they prefer to -- some rich
people, some poor people, like the alcoholic welfare recipient who
worked without extra pay as my grandmother's nursing aide. But not
everyone will, and it's those who don't who are the problem.

>> >And excessive taxes can hurt the economy.
>>
>>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0CE4D91039F935A
>15752C0A964958260
>>
>> 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.
>
>Then it'd be a bad time to consider aising 'em, because according to Kerry
>the economy is faltering
>http://ledger.southofboston.com/articles/2006/02/13/news/news03.txt

The problem is that the taxes were poorly targeted -- in a
demand-limited economy, one doesn't provide tax relief for the rich,
but for poor and middle class people, because they're more likely to
spend than invest it -- and that the deficit is above the range that
economists consider responsible given current economic circumstances.

>> >> >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.
>
>And may not've been able to do it at all, without the inheritance.

Nah. He would've had plenty of opportunities.

>> >> >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.
>
>Good thing the estate tax gives a 0% rate to spouses then, right?

You want to tax spouses?

>And which school has "kids taking classes in janitorial closets"
>This one, maybe?
>http://www.cta.org/CaliforniaEducator/v5i8/feature_tour.htm
>May, 2001, and it was a tutoring session - not a class though

No, I was thinking of classes in New York City.

That you've apparently found another (I didn't read the link) suggests
that this obscene phenomenon is not a one-off deal.

>And...lets see.....2001....Gray Davis was governor....Democrat
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Legislature
>Oh hey, California Legislature's been in Democrat hands as well.

Typical Republican smear. The CA schools went to hell after
Proposition 13 limited tax receipts.

>> >> 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.
>
>An income tax cut, when there are only a couple of brackets, can't be
>directed very well.
>15%-x. 28%-y, etc.

There used to be more, I think. Ideally, the formula would be updated
to take into account the capability of computers, but given that it
requires a bit of mathematical know-how and legislators are involved,
I wouldn't count on it (remember the state legislature that passed a
law setting the value of pi equal to 3?).

-- 
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)