|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 08/01/2005 : 16:08:24
|
I heard a commentary on NPR's "Market Place" last Friday in favor of repealing the "death tax". The argument generally went: really rich people find ways of passing down their wealth regardless, so the death tax mostly hurts small businesses.
Here's a website devoted to arguments for repealing the death/estate tax: http://www.deathtax.com/
And the argument for the tax goes a lot like this: "To be sure, as estate tax opponents are oddly fond of pointing out, the current estate tax has too many dodges and escape hatches. But rather than being an argument for repeal, that suggests closing the loopholes so that the estate tax does a better job.
"Although it's far from perfect, the estate tax does reduce concentrated wealth to a degree--if it didn't, then nobody would be lobbying to repeal it."
From http://www.ctj.org/html/estbob.htm
Thoughts?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2005 : 19:15:54 [Permalink]
|
The Estate tax addresses two goals of the Founding Fathers: trying to prevent the concentration of wealth and political power into a small number of families, and encouraging a climate in which busniesses are run by people with the best aptitude for business and innovation, rather than by the descendants of the founder, regardless of skill. It seems to me that the Bush family is the kind of thing that the Founders were afraid of.
Before the 1850s, corporations were only allowed to exist for limited purposes and limited amounts of time - most states had laws that disbanded a corporation automatically after 50 years [or less]. The legal fiction that a corporation is somehow equivalent to a person led to the reign of the Robber Barons. |
trish |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2005 : 13:34:04 [Permalink]
|
| Seeing as the estate tax doesn't at all do what it is supposed to do, should it be scrapped in exchange for new ways to break up the wealth of powerful families and corporations, or should we attempt to radically alter the current estate tax, which does seem to do more damage than good for society? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2005 : 14:34:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trishran
The Estate tax addresses two goals of the Founding Fathers: trying to prevent the concentration of wealth and political power into a small number of families, and encouraging a climate in which busniesses are run by people with the best aptitude for business and innovation, rather than by the descendants of the founder, regardless of skill. It seems to me that the Bush family is the kind of thing that the Founders were afraid of.
Before the 1850s, corporations were only allowed to exist for limited purposes and limited amounts of time - most states had laws that disbanded a corporation automatically after 50 years [or less]. The legal fiction that a corporation is somehow equivalent to a person led to the reign of the Robber Barons.
Why should the government have any say in how or how much I give to anybody when I die? I paid taxes on everything when I bought it, why should I pay taxes again on it when I die? This affects everybody, not just the rich.
You seem to be saying that the government should be involved in taking away peoples money if they get too rich for societies own good. This does not sound like a free society. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/02/2005 : 16:11:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why should the government have any say in how or how much I give to anybody when I die? I paid taxes on everything when I bought it, why should I pay taxes again on it when I die? This affects everybody, not just the rich.
You seem to be saying that the government should be involved in taking away peoples money if they get too rich for societies own good. This does not sound like a free society.
Its called economic and social justice. Without a responsible system that incorporates both you will end up with a very bad situation. Wealth tends to concentrate in a capitalist economy and culture, and if you had a pure version of capitalism anywhere it would likely do more harm to the people living with it than Nazi Germany or communist USSR did to their people. In the end, once a very few have all, the whole thing goes right down the shitter anyway. It is unsustainable.
A balance must be struck, ideally to encourage a free market and protect the people living within it. Redistribution of wealth is the only realistic way to make it function in a sustainable manner.
Besides, the LAST people on earth who need to have their "wealth" protected are dead rich ones. The Bush spin machine has done a fine job with changing "estate tax" to "death tax" and altering how it is percieved by the mainly ignorant public.
Find me a billionaire who was unable to provide for their family when they died, due to the "death tax". Then, find several, and you may have a rational basis for changing how this aspect of redistribution of wealth functions.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 14:38:12 [Permalink]
|
There is a difference between individual freedom to pursue goals and [dare I say it] happiness, and glomming onto every resource you can get your hands one, even beyond what you could possibly consume in your single, limited lifetime. Also, the fewer hand into which wealth is concentrated, the fewer opportunities for others to pursue their goals [if I'm workiing 16 hour days in someone else's factory, it limits the time I have to pursue education, artistic goals, family responsibilities, or fun]. And, even if one deserves every dollar one has been fortunate/motivated/lucky/greedy enough to amass, do the children and grandchildren of such people deserve to not have to work? How is that any more moral than not working while on welfare?
Whether people have access to the resources they need to support their families should not be treated like some win/lose scenario in a Monopoly game.
Here's a question that has troubled me for some time: If we truly believe, as a society, that people are most motivated to be their most productive and creative when they are not guaranteed a minimal standard of living [having rent, food and health care "handed to them], why is it the people whose performance is a life-or-death issue for our country, soldiers, are provided with those very things? If we can trust our armed forces personnel to give their best, even when they don't have to worry about being two paychecks away from homelessness, why should we believe that this kind of insecurity is a motivator for success, and not the source of gnawing fear? |
trish |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/03/2005 : 16:01:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If we truly believe, as a society, that people are most motivated to be their most productive and creative when they are not guaranteed a minimal standard of living [having rent, food and health care "handed to them], why is it the people whose performance is a life-or-death issue for our country, soldiers, are provided with those very things?
I believe (but am not certain) that it is a crime if you are found slacking in the military, especially if it causes someone to get injured.
Other than that, I think the question answers itself. It is a life-or-death situation for those in the military, and when they do their best, they increase the chance that they will survive. That is enough motivation itself. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 07:40:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Its called economic and social justice. Without a responsible system that incorporates both you will end up with a very bad situation. Wealth tends to concentrate in a capitalist economy and culture,
This link shows that wealth is spreading in the U.S. http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/25/pf/record_millionaires/
quote:
and if you had a pure version of capitalism anywhere it would likely do more harm to the people living with it than Nazi Germany or communist USSR did to their people.
Do you have examples of this in the past where a capitalist society killed millions of people because some are rich?
quote:
A balance must be struck, ideally to encourage a free market and protect the people living within it. Redistribution of wealth is the only realistic way to make it function in a sustainable manner.
Redistribution of wealth should happen by people having the freedom to work hard and make their own money and not being taxed to death. From the above link it seems to be happening here.
quote:
Besides, the LAST people on earth who need to have their "wealth" protected are dead rich ones. The Bush spin machine has done a fine job with changing "estate tax" to "death tax" and altering how it is percieved by the mainly ignorant public.
Rich people do not deserve to have their money excessively taken from them just as poor people do not deserve to have their money excessively taken from them.
quote:
Find me a billionaire who was unable to provide for their family when they died, due to the "death tax". Then, find several, and you may have a rational basis for changing how this aspect of redistribution of wealth functions.
This is not the issue. Of course rich people can provide for their family even if the government excessively takes away their money.
The rich are not the enemy. Rich people and companies have provided myself and most people a job so they can take care of thier families with food, clothing, shelter and health care.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 07:47:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by trishran
quote:
And, even if one deserves every dollar one has been fortunate/motivated/lucky/greedy enough to amass,
Why are three out of the four qualities of rich people negative? Why not say "inteligent/motivated/hard-working/skilled" instead. I think the Dems have done a good job in demonizing the rich.
quote:
do the children and grandchildren of such people deserve to not have to work? How is that any more moral than not working while on welfare?
Because the government is not paying them.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 08:41:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
trishran:
do the children and grandchildren of such people deserve to not have to work? How is that any more moral than not working while on welfare?
quote:
Robb:
Because the government is not paying them.
If they are not contributing to society in any way, I also do not see how they have any moral superiority over those who are not working while on welfare. The fact that they are not on the public payroll is incidental. A bum is a bum. It doesn't really matter if they are spending daddy's money or ours. That you would assign that kind of judgment based on what you have to pay says more about you than it does about those who do not contribute in any meaningful way.
The fact that Daddy did contribute by paying taxes and creating jobs says little or nothing about his kids. You don't get to be born with some kind of moral superiority simply because you were born into money. If those bums on the public dole (and most are not bums) suddenly win the lottery and are set for life, do they automatically become morally superior because they are not living off of your money anymore? I fail to see your logic.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 09:21:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
quote:
trishran:
do the children and grandchildren of such people deserve to not have to work? How is that any more moral than not working while on welfare?
quote:
Robb:
Because the government is not paying them.
If they are not contributing to society in any way, I also do not see how they have any moral superiority over those who are not working while on welfare. The fact that they are not on the public payroll is incidental. A bum is a bum. It doesn't really matter if they are spending daddy's money or ours. That you would assign that kind of judgment based on what you have to pay says more about you than it does about those who do not contribute in any meaningful way.
You read much into a short comment I made. I am not saying that rich people have any moral superiority over poor people. I am saying that if you are receiving money from the government you have a moral responsibility to try to get a job to get off welfare if you can. As long as people are doing this, I will support them. If you are rich and do nothing, I agree that you are a bum, but in our society they have every right to do nothing. BTW why the personal attack? quote:
That you would assign that kind of judgment based on what you have to pay says more about you than it does about those who do not contribute in any meaningful
I personally believe that with money comes social responsibility. If you have a billion dollars and sit on it, you are morally wrong. We should keep what we need to live on and take care of our family and give the rest away to help people. I think people with excessive cars, homes and toys are not holding up their social responsibility to others even though in our society it is deemed OK.
quote:
The fact that Daddy did contribute by paying taxes and creating jobs says little or nothing about his kids. You don't get to be born with some kind of moral superiority simply because you were born into money. If those bums on the public dole (and most are not bums) suddenly win the lottery and are set for life, do they automatically become morally superior because they are not living off of your money anymore? I fail to see your logic.
I said nothing like this. See previous 2 paragraphs.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 09:50:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Robb:
BTW why the personal attack?
I meant no personal attack. I know many people who are offended because we have to pay for a welfare system and view most of those in need as leaches and bums. Rightly or wrongly I lumped you in with those people.
quote:
Robb:
I personally believe that with money comes social responsibility. If you have a billion dollars and sit on it, you are morally wrong. We should keep what we need to live on and take care of our family and give the rest away to help people. I think people with excessive cars, homes and toys are not holding up their social responsibility to others even though in our society it is deemed OK.
Fine. But is it your position that we cannot compel those people to contribute? Just like we would like to compel those on public assistance to contribute by getting a job and paying taxes? Seems to me the only way to assure that they do contribute is with an estate tax.
And yes, I came into this discussion late and perhaps jumped the gun when assessing your motivation for opposing estate taxes. I don't have the faith that you have that people with large inheritances will do the right thing…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 10:13:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Fine. But is it your position that we cannot compel those people to contribute? Just like we would like to compel those on public assistance to contribute by getting a job and paying taxes? Seems to me the only way to assure that they do contribute is with an estate tax.
People with excessive wealth (where that point is is highly debatable) should be "persuaded" to contribute....not forced. If they want to be ass holes and sit on their money then that should be their right. People on welfare, on the other hand, are taking from all of us and have an obligation to at least try and contribute and get off welfare if possible. I see no moral argument here. I do not look down upon the needy and I certainly to not idolize the wealthy. I agree with Robb that someone who works their ass of does not deserve to have extra taken from them, but along with that comes the right of their children to sit on their asses if they so please. I might not like it, but it should be their right.
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
And yes, I came into this discussion late and perhaps jumped the gun when assessing your motivation for opposing estate taxes. I don't have the faith that you have that people with large inheritances will do the right thing…
As I mentioned, we all hope that they will do the right thing, but I don't think they should be forced. I thought a fool and his money are soon parted, so eventually that money will find its way back into the system where the smart, the talented, the skilled, and the hard working will get their hands on it. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 08/04/2005 10:15:39 |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 10:31:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
quote:
Robb:
BTW why the personal attack?
I meant no personal attack. I know many people who are offended because we have to pay for a welfare system and view most of those in need as leaches and bums. Rightly or wrongly I lumped you in with those people.
Understood. Not a problem.
quote:
But is it your position that we cannot compel those people to contribute? .
Yes quote:
And yes, I came into this discussion late and perhaps jumped the gun when assessing your motivation for opposing estate taxes. I don't have the faith that you have that people with large inheritances will do the right thing…
Some won't, some will, but it is my belief that it is their decision and not the governments.
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 13:34:55 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote: "This affects everybody, not just the rich."
Actually, the death/estate tax affects less than one percent of Americans.
Robb wrote: "You seem to be saying that the government should be involved in taking away peoples money if they get too rich for societies own good. This does not sound like a free society."
We don't just want a free society. We also want a just society. We should strive for a balance between the two.
Also, what do you think makes your property yours, anyway? The whole concept of protected ownership has culturally evolved. Most people in our society agree that taxes are necessary. We're just debating over whether this particular tax does more harm or good to the ideal balance between freedom and justice.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 14:13:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by trishran
Here's a question that has troubled me for some time: If we truly believe, as a society, that people are most motivated to be their most productive and creative when they are not guaranteed a minimal standard of living [having rent, food and health care "handed to them], why is it the people whose performance is a life-or-death issue for our country, soldiers, are provided with those very things? If we can trust our armed forces personnel to give their best, even when they don't have to worry about being two paychecks away from homelessness, why should we believe that this kind of insecurity is a motivator for success, and not the source of gnawing fear?
The problem is that our military isn't paid well intil you get into the upper NCO ranks. The lowly buck private is paid a mere pittance even with hazardous duty pay and remote pay. A large number of married enlisted people even qualify for their billeting state's food stamp program. And an on base housing billet is primarily for singles and as space allows. There isn't enough on base housing for everyone assigned to the base most times. Privates (E-3) in their first year at the pay scale get $16,282 per year. A Sergent (E-5) in their first year at the rank gets $19,504 per year. Poverty level is at $17,062 per year.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
