"Look, the government collects taxes to provide infrastructure and services to society.
Who pays the taxes? The people.
Which people? The ones who can pay.
How much? The amount society thinks it needs.
Should some people pay more than others? This is the tricky one. Well, the easy part first. The people who can barely feed, house, and clothe themselves obviously can't afford much. We'll give them a free pass, but society needs that much more from the rest. Next up: The ones who can't pay for college for their kids. Let's just take a little. Next: These ones are living pretty good, even if they don't have a summer home or anything. We'll take a pretty good chunk. Next up: These ones can afford to give their girl a Porsche for her Sweet 16. They can afford a pretty penny. Finally: Jackpot! These guys have mansions in three states and could still live off of stock dividends if not for the twice-yearly world tour!"

Aside from the fact that you think "Jackpot!" at the thought of having rich people pay more than their fair share I think you are identifying a system that I have already said I understand.  The rich do need to pay more as a reality of the system.  Where I disagree is when you start applying laws to them that don't apply to others.  I am fine with laws that are based on expenditures or even incomes provided they treat people evenly across the board, with the possible exception of the poor.

"I don't see why taking more from the final category is immoral. Even the dead ones."

Getting more tax revenue from the rich isn't inheritly immoral, but as for the deceased I think it is immoral. Partly because you aren't taking from them but from their family that they left it to.  But also because you aren't taking more from their familieis...but rather you are only taking from their families. But if you took anything at all from the middle class then they would be up in arms because it was happening to them.

 

"Coming at it from a different angle: some people here have noted that the estate tax is a defense against the creation of a permanent class of "capitalist nobility" -- whole sections of society that can live off of inherited, self-sustaining assets. In fact, these people already exist. Imagine what would happen if the trend wasn't held in check!"

This "capatalist nobility" thing is bunk.  There might be a handful of rich families who have past wealth on for more than 4 generations but for the most part large family wealth is split up and willed to so many people that it is hardly considered wealth anymore.  If you split a $1 billion estate amongst 5 people every generation the result after four generations is that at most (assuming the people haven't squandered it) someone would have ~1.6m. As for any self-sustaining assets you are basically saying that these people have their money invested in an area that is providing jobs and growth...how is that a bad thing, we want the rich to be invested.

Quite frankly your argument is nonsensical.  On the one hand the amount you are taking is insignificant and it won't be missed and they should hardly notice....but on the other hand it is apparently the only thing keeping this capitalistic nobility in check!  Well which is it?  Sorry but the way you are acting is like anyone with $10m is sure to become a billionaire if you give him 20 years.  And that is simply not the case. Just having a few million dollars doesn't mean you will make more and it doesn't mean you will keep it.  

   

"This wealth isn't created out of thin air. Something has to create it, and it's (as usual) the working class. The magic of capitalism just moves the fruits of their labors up the food chain into the hands of the investor class. How is that "fair"? Down with capitalism! Oh, wait, "fair" is your schtick."

Are you really going down this road?  So you are saying that employees should share profits now?  Really so the next time you invent the can-opener, we should be giving a percentage of profits to every worker in the factory?  It sounds to me like you want to disincentivize ingenuity and incentivize working a generic 9 to 5.  

Sorry but the idea that just hoping on to someone's good idea at the last minute is sufficient to get a share is insanity.  Good ideas should be rewarded with a share, working on someone elses good idea should be rewarded with a wage. This gives incentive to actually come up with good ideas and its the foundation of an economy and society that doesn't want to stagnate.

As for how is it fair that the fruits of their labors are moved up the fruit tree?  Very fair, because those investors were the ones who had the risk.  They built the capital and risked the capital so they should reap the profit.  Not a hard concept.  And you act as if people are slaves and don't get paid. 

The fact is if the people who are busting their asses so hard really wanted to they could do what so many others have done before them and actually risk something to gain something by busting their ass for their own good ideas.  If they are willing to do the work and are willing to stick with it then they could start a business and they could be the one who reaps the benefit.  But the simple fact of the matter is that most people aren't willing to take a risk and most people aren't willing to put in the work and instead they fall in love with the results and dream of "what ifs".  

Everyone wants the benefits without the work involved in between, its human nature..but it just isn't an economic system that works. 

fkusumot said: Sqrl said: This past year the guy who cought the big Bonds homerun had to sell the ball because the IRS knocked on his door the next morning saying they wanted their share. The fact is that there are folks who have estates worth a few million and the money is all tied up in assets that they own. It is not an uncommon occurence for people to sell portions of an estate to pay the taxes on the estate. The fact that anyone would be forced to sell things given to them by their recently deceased relative is quite frankly mortifying. Taxes are paid on things given as gifts over a certain amount. Are you in favor of getting rid of the gift tax? Anyways, rich people, the really rich ones, have trusts. There are ways around paying estate taxes (estate planning) so in my mind it comes down to poor planning by the person making the gift of some property to another person upon their death. I don't know why you find it mortifying that things are sold. I understand the sentimentality but painting it like that is a little overboard. If you look hard at what people have to sell to pay taxes it almost always involves real estate that is worth so much that the person inheriting it could not afford to live there and pay the property taxes. If it is the specifics that irk you so much then we could delve into details. On the question of a plutocracy vs. meritocracy: I have looked at the history and plutocracies only come about when the amount of capital becomes extremely skewed distribution wise. Plutocracies don't exist when the distribution of capital is more even. Plutocracies aren't meritocratic by definition. I prefer meritocracies so I am for measures that prevent the rise of plutocracies. I view campaign finance reform as only a treatment for the symptom and not a cure (but I'm still for campaign finance, go McCain).

 As far as the gift tax goes, I will be honest in saying I am at odds with this one.  I can see many problems created by allowing the shift of wealth so easily.  With the estate tax it is quite a bit different since...well you have to die to do it =P

But in the case of just handing off money to someone I can definitely see issues that would come up.  It definitely isn't my favorite law but once again I recognize that the system isn't going to be perfect and that some neccessary evils will exist.  

This is also a law that I am fairly unfamiliar with.  But on the surface it would appear it is one of those neccessary evils. 

Kasz216 said: elprincipe said: Kasz216 said: Fortune Magazine, May 15th 2006 cites the Veteran's healtcare as the most cost-efficent healthcare in the country. So. Yeah... there ya go. They have a 90 out of 100 rating while spending the least amount of money. Pretty amazing i'd say. Wow, surprising to hear. Do you have a link where I can read this article? I know there are several in this thread that would like me to visit the crow-eating thread :) http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/05/15/8376846/index.htm

Wow, this is surprising and wonderful to hear.  While I will still maintain my point that generally the private sector does it better, and even point out that in certain areas now and definitely over the long haul the private sector will do this better as well (as soon as they get off their asses and use IT to improve health care as the VA has done), I shall certainly visit the Crow Eating Thread due to this information.  Thanks for the information!

famousringo said: elprincipe said: famousringo said: Sorry, next time I'll use facts that are more in line with your pre-conceived notions. Do me a favour. The next time you demand that somebody "prove it," replace the language with "you can't prove it to me." Don't pretend that you can be reasoned with when you've already made up your mind. Do me a favor: don't point out rankings by a supremely biased source as "proof" of something and then get upset when I don't accept them. Do you have any evidence that the WHO is biased? According to Google, the only people who think the WHO is biased is the tobacco industry. Let me guess, it's part of the UN, so it must hate the US. Is that the assumption you're making? Edit: Found one article from the National Review. Main criticism is the WHO continuing inefficient aid programs at the behest of NGOs. Still can't find anybody else doing broad comparisons of health care performance, though. I imagine that study about relative administration costs between US and Canadian systems didn't hold any truck with you, either.

The UN is riddled with corruption and has a lot of agendas that are being served.

Try here for WHO specifically:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28274.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/1995/08/21/edpaul.t.php 

Kasz216 said: GameMusic said: ssj12 said: GameMusic said: 1. Gore 2. Kucinich 3. Colbert 4. Edwards 5. Richardson 6. Obama 7. Clinton 8. Ron Paul 9. A hamster on drugs 10. A republican (other than Ron Paul) if thats your preferred list you deserve to be smacked. Edwards? Clinton? Obama? The other democrats but Gore? wtf is wrong with you. Oh well.. i guess you want the country to collapse onto itself. LOL, what's your problem with democrats other than Gore? Gore: Environmental advocate. This is THE most important issue, hands down. Kucinich: Record of strong support for individual rights, the 2nd most important issue. Colbert: He's obviously a rather smart guy, and would most likely support progressive policies. He would also be less likely to frame the issues in politics-speak, which might actually lead to meaningful discussion in the media. Those 3 would be superb. Edwards: Consumer advocate. Richardson: He supports medical marijuana. Obama: Basically, he doesn't have a lot of a record, but at least he seems to be reasonably progressive compared to some. Those 6 would each likely support (in varying degrees) environmental protection, medical care, individual rights, etc. Clinton: She constantly speaks in PC terms, avoids questions, and worst, voted for the patriot act and the war. She basically is a booby prize candidate, only worth supporting to keep republicans out. Paul: Like Colbert, he wouldn't be part of the establishment of newspeak and would open up the screwed up political system. He is a big supporter of individual rights, and would try to get rid of a lot of crap in the government. He would probably end the country's ridiculous corn subsidy which would do wonders for taxes, medical care, energy independence, and general health. However, he might go too far and go after social security and welfare, and wouldn't support public health care. Other than that he'd be #4. Hamster: It wouldn't be like Bush. Republicans: Most of them have supported the treasonous Bush and his attacks on individual liberty, taxes (he has raised taxes. the national debt = future taxes), government openness, and anything good in the universe. Giuliani can't do anything but brag about 9/11, as if he had anything to brag about. McCain has gone crazy since around 2000 (when he was a viable candidate) and is now supporting Bush and the war. The others are a bunch of bad jokes. Mccain supports the War in Iraq because we are there now. That's what he's always said... and he's right. It would be unfair for us to leave a war WE started... to let the people who didn't ask us to start the war in the first place kill each other. You can say "but but... Bush started it" but guess what. Bush was made president. So that makes Iraq our responsibility now. Just because your a democrat and a republican made a decision doesn't mean you can pull out and wash your hands clean of the situation. Anything that happens after a pull out of troops is as much on your and my hands as it is Bush's. It won't be "but there terrorists will attack us." or some BS like that but it WILL be bloody civil war and likely genocide... possibly followed by Turky and Iran invaded and splitting the country in half. How are countries supposed to trust us when whenever we make a mistake we can pull up and leave in 4 years by going "Whooops that was that other political party... not us! Not our problem." America uses blaming the other party for all the mistakes as a "get out of jail free card" and I'm sure other countries are sick of it by now.

 Nobody is calling for an immediate pullout (nice straw man).  McCain however wants to increase troop presence, and it's a lot more than the war.  Since 2000 he has said a number of things that make me believe he has become more like Bush.   See voting record.

 http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Homeland_Security.htm

Because they are the best presidents and will be....unlike these mods on this site..

ssj12 said: name one candidate that gives a damn about our country and not how they look on stage that can actually lead this country correctly. I dont want some damn retarded b**ch, or a guy who cross-dressed and cheated on 2 of his wives. I want someone who has knowlegde and real world experience.

 

 Kucinich

 And you want a qualified candidate then go on to name-calling (retarded b**ch) and insulting a candidate based on things that are unrelated to qualifications (cross-dressing and cheating)?

elprincipe said: Kasz216 said: elprincipe said: Kasz216 said: Fortune Magazine, May 15th 2006 cites the Veteran's healtcare as the most cost-efficent healthcare in the country. So. Yeah... there ya go. They have a 90 out of 100 rating while spending the least amount of money. Pretty amazing i'd say. Wow, surprising to hear. Do you have a link where I can read this article? I know there are several in this thread that would like me to visit the crow-eating thread :) http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/05/15/8376846/index.htm Wow, this is surprising and wonderful to hear.  While I will still maintain my point that generally the private sector does it better, and even point out that in certain areas now and definitely over the long haul the private sector will do this better as well (as soon as they get off their asses and use IT to improve health care as the VA has done), I shall certainly visit the Crow Eating Thread due to this information.  Thanks for the information!

The problem is it takes the government sector to spur this change because the private sector was afraid to use this technology because if it failed just once they'd have some lawsuits on their hands.  That and the systems themselves were so effective before the implmentation of it at the VA that only the largest healtcare providers could afford it.  Those that could didn't want to take a risk that could blow up in their face and force them to lose ground to their competitors.

I mean, you'd be surprised how much money gets spent on things like advertisments and consumer marketing for hospitals.  My one teacher used to consult for hospitals all the time... for a modest fee he'd find out how to best position themselves against other hospitals.

If it weren't for the VA and government healthcare this stuff wouldn't of reached hostpitals for a long long time. Even now it'll probably take forever for a decent number of healthcare providers to get it.

We don't have enough trooops in... so we put more in. Seems to make sense. More people to watch each others backs. Take troops out, and expect them to do the same jobs of protecting themselves and the areas we have under control... and we're just going to get more casualties. It always takes more troops to win an occupation then it does a war... and that's basically what this is. Sure we'll get out eventually once things are fixed... or we divide up the country which always works great... but the whole thing is just an occupation at the moment, with a set up of a puppet government. Well except the government seems to hate us other then the fact that they know they need us right now. Principls are the same as far as how they work. Besides which... they don't have enough troops to secure the borders of Iraq as it is, which is causing some insurgents to come in... the minority mind you, but still the more insurgants the more trouble there is. Then you've got the whole Turkey thing. No clue how the governments going to handle that one. Having more troops in Iraq doesn't mean that you can't seek diplomatic solutions too... it just means you think you need more troops in Iraq.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/542.html

Over 40 million Americans don't pay taxes, and 90% make less than $30,000 a year. Is this class warfare? No, it's an acknowledgement that society does not benefit from turning struggling people into destitute people. (And you, "possibly", concur.) The middle class is not up in arms about having to pay taxes.

I really don't know why you cannot see that the estate tax's taking only from estates worth over two million dollars is not directly analogous to the income tax's taking (almost) only from people making over twentywhatever thousand dollars. Why is that? Please explain it to me.

Yeah, except for the part about that not being true. That's assuming that each generation stuck it under their mattresses their entire lives and never made a cent they didn't spend, which is just ludicrous. (And also "squandering" in this day and age.) Up until now both of us have been discussing the investment angle; why assume it doesn't exist all of a sudden? It sounds like I'm not the one with a nonsensical argument.

I'm not saying they'll never miss the money; I'm saying that they'll do just fine without it. There's a difference.



I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying that it's unfair. It is. But it's capitalism, and it works, and we can suck it up and live with it. Just like the rich can suck on the fact that 1/3 of their mansions might go to the IRS if they die a billionaire. You obviously didn't read the "Oh, wait, "fair" is your schtick."

I welcome a response to all the points I make in this post, but please focus on the bolded portions.