Text 3746, 248 rader
Skriven 2006-07-08 14:17:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4219.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: <19kua2lnmplp0vf8ghs1l7oqhue3p95r0c@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <89392$44a7de37$18d64cf6$7427@KNOLOGY.NET>
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 19:53:13 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:uekta29spvdh78kh9qdpr9kakclku6cdtp@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 21:44:05 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>> <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
><snip>
>> >
>> >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.
>
>Well, its taxed when its income/profit, right?
>So it was taxed.

Not necessarily -- if it was a long-term capital gain it may not have
been taxed. But that doesn't make a difference anyway. Money is
typically taxed when it changes hands. If Bill gives $10,000 to his
niece, she pays taxes on it, even though he paid taxes on it when he
earned it.

>> >> /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?
>
>Folks who figure they could make good money at it, because there are other
>folks who wouldn't.

But you're removing the incentive to make good money. That's the
point. When you have a billion dollars in the bank, you don't /have/
to work. Some people do because they like to, but some don't, just as
in the case of welfare.

>> >> 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 when Microsoft (or pick your favoirte company) can grow based on the
>profits, it re-enters the economy.
>Its not siphoned off.

Same is true of money that's taxed. The routes are just different.

>> 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.
>
>Fortunately, my folks never heard of that last bit.

I don't think mine had either . . . 

>> >> 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 you fix "those who dont who are the problem" by punishing.....everyone
>else too.
>Check.

Dude, that's our entire economic system. I mean, if we just turned
super socialist and divvied up all the money equally, we'd have
exactly that situation -- people would work only if they felt like it.

>> >> >And excessive taxes can hurt the economy.
>> >>
>>
>>>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0CE4D91039F935
>A
>> >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.
>
>I always thought investing is better for the economy.

Usually, spending is better, because our economy tends to be limited
by demand rather than the availability of capital. That's particularly
true now that wages are being depressed by globalization. We've
effectively been borrowing our way out of a depression.

>> >> >> >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?
>
>Didn't say that, nad not too sure how you got there from my comment.
>However, by your rationale, what did the spouse do to earn it, if they
>weren't working in the company?
>Even if they were, they've received profit over their lifetime via wages.
>In short, repeat your rationale for taxing the inheritance of kids who
>worked in the company, replacing
>"kid" with "spouse".

Spouses pool their money and in effect act as one joint unit. Kids get
to share in that wealth untaxed too insofar as they're dependents.
Insofar as they're independent, they don't.

>> >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.
>
>Go read the link.
>
>>
>> >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.
>
>So correctly pointing out who was running CA at the time the article in the
>link was written is now a smear.
>Check.

It's a smear, or at least a cheap political trick, to blame a
political figure for something for which he isn't responsible.
California's schools have been a mess ever since Proposition 13.

>> >> >> 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?).
>
>http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.htm
>
>Though the claim about the Alabama state legislature is pure nonsense, it is
>similar to an event that happened more than a century ago. In 1897 the
>Indiana House of Representatives unanimously passed a measure redefining the
>area of a circle and the value of pi. (House Bill no. 246, introduced by
>Rep. Taylor I. Record.) The bill died in the state Senate.
>
>Or do you have another reference?

Just something I've read in the past . . .

-- 
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)