|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
 Posted - 08/04/2005 : 14:49:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
quote:
Actually, the death/estate tax affects less than one percent of Americans.
It affects everybody because I beleive that no matter who you are or where you come from you can make be a financial success in this country. The amount of millionaires in this country keeps increasing.http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/25/pf/record_millionaires/
quote:
We don't just want a free society. We also want a just society. We should strive for a balance between the two.
I want a just society as well. I think it is unjust to take away a persons money because they are rich. Why can't we have a free and just society?
quote:
Also, what do you think makes your property yours, anyway? The whole concept of protected ownership has culturally evolved.
Really, the concept of private property was not "cultuturally evolved". The 5th ammendment says that people do own property.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I also think John Adams and James Madison would disagree with you.
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God ... anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST" John Adams
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort .... This being the end of government, that is NOT a just government,... nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest." James Madison.
|
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 : 14:54:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
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.
You should add that health care, food, clothing and shelter are given to each person in the military. You need to adjust your numbers accordingly. Even if someone is living in off base housing additional money is given to them for rent. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
trishran
Skeptic Friend
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 17:16:21 [Permalink]
|
| The point I was trying to make by mentioning the military is that, when we *really* need to rely on someone's performance, we don't put them in a position of having to scrounge for shelter, food, health insurance and such. I was thinking in terms of expectatations about performance and motivation via insecurity. |
trish |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2005 : 19:15:34 [Permalink]
|
Robb wrote: "It affects everybody because I beleive that no matter who you are or where you come from you can make be a financial success in this country. The amount of millionaires in this country keeps increasing."
First of all, the amount of millionaires in this country will continue to increase regardless because of inflation. A million dollars isn't what it was 30 years ago, and in another 30 years it'll be worth even less.
But more importantly, that article references a shallow increase. It could be an indication of the shrinking of the middle class. Also, what percentage of those in that 21% increase started out as middle class educated whites? For this to be a convincing argument you need a lot more data to show that this is a broad ranging phenomenom that transcends class and race boundaries.
While all people *might* have the potential to be millionaires, some clearly have huge social advantages, and also, that doesn't change the fact that the death/estate tax only affects less than one percent of all Americans.
Robb also wrote: "Really, the concept of private property was not "cultuturally evolved". The 5th ammendment says that people do own property."
Notice that the term "private property" is not explained in the fifth ammendment. That would mean that people already had a common knowledge concept of what private property is. So the founding fathers of America didn't invent private property - it culturally evolved long before the foundation of this country put the concept into our laws.
And I will again point out that a purist capitalist would use the same quotes you just used to argue against any form of taxation. Are you arguing for the privatization of military, education, police forces, utilities, etc? If not, then why are you using these obtuse arguments? You have yet to give a practical and relevent argument as to why the death/estate tax specifically should be repealed.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/04/2005 19:24:40 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 06:50:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
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.
You should add that health care, food, clothing and shelter are given to each person in the military. You need to adjust your numbers accordingly. Even if someone is living in off base housing additional money is given to them for rent.
Allowances for housing are $760 - $1440 for elisted people with dependants. Subtract about $225 per month for single folks.
In the markets they are billeted in, the amount of money is jack squat. $1440 is for Great Lakes Naval Station. Housing around there starts at $1700 for a two bedroom apartment.
The additional money given them does not approach paying for the housing by any stretch of the imagination. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 06:59:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
quote:
First of all, the amount of millionaires in this country will continue to increase regardless because of inflation. A million dollars isn't what it was 30 years ago, and in another 30 years it'll be worth even less.
I agree, but most people would like to have a million dollars in the bank. I will try to find some numbers adjusted for inflation to see if there are actually more millionaires today.
quote:
But more importantly, that article references a shallow increase. It could be an indication of the shrinking of the middle class. Also, what percentage of those in that 21% increase started out as middle class educated whites? For this to be a convincing argument you need a lot more data to show that this is a broad ranging phenomenom that transcends class and race boundaries.
Who cares what race they are? I am trying to show that the number of millionaires is increasing in this country and the wealth is not being concentrated into a couple of families. Why now do you change it based on race. You are assuming that minorities have less of a chance to become millionaires. They may have to work harder and overcome some obstacles others do not. But America promises equal opportunity not an equal starting point.
quote:
While all people *might* have the potential to be millionaires, some clearly have huge social advantages, and also, that doesn't change the fact that the death/estate tax only affects less than one percent of all Americans.
That's about 2.7 million people it affects. Why should these people live under different rules than the rest of the country? The top 1% of income earners pays greater than 30% of all the taxes in America when they are alive. I think they have done their share.
quote:
Robb also wrote: "Really, the concept of private property was not "cultuturally evolved". The 5th ammendment says that people do own property."
Notice that the term "private property" is not explained in the fifth ammendment. That would mean that people already had a common knowledge concept of what private property is. So the founding fathers of America didn't invent private property - it culturally evolved long before the foundation of this country put the concept into our laws.
My fault, I thought you were saying that it has culturally evolved in this country. Even so, this country believes in the right to own property and the 5th amendment protects that right and to not have it taken away unjustly.
quote:
Are you arguing for the privatization of military, education, police forces, utilities, etc? If not, then why are you using these obtuse arguments? You have yet to give a practical and relevent argument as to why the death/estate tax specifically should be repealed.
No, I am only arguing for the repeal of the estate tax. What do you want to know other than it is discriminating against people that have money? These people pay more taxes than anybody else when they are alive, why should we penalize them when they die? A |
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 - 08/05/2005 : 07:23:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Allowances for housing are $760 - $1440 for elisted people with dependants. Subtract about $225 per month for single folks.
In the markets they are billeted in, the amount of money is jack squat. $1440 is for Great Lakes Naval Station. Housing around there starts at $1700 for a two bedroom apartment.
The additional money given them does not approach paying for the housing by any stretch of the imagination.
The actual numbers are here:
http://www.nsgreatlakes.navy.mil/housing/2005bah.htm
The minimum for a single folk is $782 and married is $1018. If you need to pay $1700 for rent then there is a problem. I don't think you do. Here is the average cost of living in the area:
http://www.nsgreatlakes.navy.mil/housing/rcost.htm
A 2 bedroom apartment is around $850.
You also need to figure in health care that they do not need to pay for. I don't think it is as bad as you make it out to be. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2005 : 11:21:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Allowances for housing are $760 - $1440 for elisted people with dependants. Subtract about $225 per month for single folks.
In the markets they are billeted in, the amount of money is jack squat. $1440 is for Great Lakes Naval Station. Housing around there starts at $1700 for a two bedroom apartment.
The additional money given them does not approach paying for the housing by any stretch of the imagination.
The actual numbers are here:
http://www.nsgreatlakes.navy.mil/housing/2005bah.htm
The minimum for a single folk is $782 and married is $1018. If you need to pay $1700 for rent then there is a problem. I don't think you do. Here is the average cost of living in the area:
http://www.nsgreatlakes.navy.mil/housing/rcost.htm
A 2 bedroom apartment is around $850.
You also need to figure in health care that they do not need to pay for. I don't think it is as bad as you make it out to be.
I have discovered that I may have overstated rental prices. Median rental for the North Chicago area (in which Great Lakes is in) in 2000 was $1,279. The numbers quoted by the military base is for estimated averages of surrounding areas. (There are a few areas which are economically depressed and drives the average down.)
http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/gci/events/gci_winterforum_site/background%20resources/state%20of%20rental%20housing%20in%20region.pdf
This same report lists Villa Park with a median rental of $720 which is rediculously low in my experience. (First place I rented in Villa Park without section 8 housing was $1,200 a month and that was cheap compared to the stuff in the papers. Went up to $1,450 per month by 2004.)
Housing is also called affordable if it is no more than 30% of the families income. The rental amounts in the area is above that for low level enlisted. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2005 : 06:33:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
quote:
But more importantly, that article references a shallow increase. It could be an indication of the shrinking of the middle class. Also, what percentage of those in that 21% increase started out as middle class educated whites? For this to be a convincing argument you need a lot more data to show that this is a broad ranging phenomenom that transcends class and race boundaries.
Who cares what race they are? I am trying to show that the number of millionaires is increasing in this country and the wealth is not being concentrated into a couple of families. Why now do you change it based on race. You are assuming that minorities have less of a chance to become millionaires. They may have to work harder and overcome some obstacles others do not. But America promises equal opportunity not an equal starting point.
Just wanted to single this out for a moment. That the number of millionaires increases in America does not mean that wealth isn't being concentrated in a couple of families. The number of millionaires might be increasing slightly, but this might be because of a decrease of the middle class. This would mean that the gap between rich and poor is getting bigger and that wealth is indeed concentrating.
Also, I don't really see the difference between equal opportunity and equal starting point. In my mind, while not being exactly equal, they are definitely related. In a society stiving for equal opportunity, wouldn't some basic structures need to be in place, for example public schooling? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 00:34:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Robb;Do you have examples of this in the past where a capitalist society killed millions of people because some are rich?
Just wondering...Fascists can't also be capitalists? Nazi Germany and fascist Italy weren't also capitalist societies?
This article that Robb posted seems a little misleading. The survey in question seems to have only been concerned with wealth. Was all of that wealth increase due to increases in earned income?
I doubt it.
There are lots of other ways that these figures could rise, and still have nothing to do with distribution of wealth. Primarily, these figures should not be measured against themselves, but against the population as a whole, and against the well being of the economy as a whole. Plus, the magical 'millionaire' number is meaningless in relationship to the distribution of wealth.
The estate tax is just that--A tax! It's no better or worse than any other form of taxation. What form of taxation is fair to everyone? The estate tax is a part of a progressive tax system. Would we prefer a regressive tax that forces those that can afford the least to carry the heaviest burden?
quote:
Posted by Robb;
The top 1% of income earners pays greater than 30% of all the taxes in America when they are alive. I think they have done their share.
Well, if that's true, we have a problem, because they appear to control closer to 40% of the nation's wealth. And, as Robb's article suggests, much of this new wealth was not earned. It was acquired through the stock market. In other words, these people took dollars from the economy without exchanging a product or a service for those dollars. They put nothing back--Unearned income!
If we do not tax those that can most afford it, whom do we tax?
Perhaps, we should levy our taxes by percentage of actual wealth rather than by a percentage of income. In that case, the estate tax would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, those wealthy enough to buy tax legislation and those most likely to pay an estate tax stand to lose a whole lot more with a wealth tax.
Here's some interesting charts on the distribution of wealth;
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/income_charts.html
http://www.lcurve.org/
To be perfectly honest, I could care less if Paris Hilton inherits a modest fortune or a mega fortune. All taxes suck, but are a necessary evil. If someone has a better idea, put it on the table. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
Stargirl
Skeptic Friend
USA
94 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 17:23:02 [Permalink]
|
Having worked at Great Lakes, NTC and living six miles away from it I have to agree with Valiant. Yes there are cheap apartments in the cities north of the base. Some as low as $450 and no you wouldn't want to live in them. The cities south and west of the base forget it, I doubt if most of the officers could afford to live there. And around here half the apartment complexes that are approved naval housing are places where a six foot six inch, two-hundred twenty pound fully armed Navy Seal would think twice about coming and going after dark. Heck the local P.D. won't go in to half of them unless they have at least one backup and that's during the day.
While it's true that the number of millionaires is increasing, others have already given plausible reasons for it besides growing wealth, the number of people living in poverty is also increasing as shown here and here. And the gap between rich and poor is widening as well.
I'm always amazed by people who think that pure capitalism is the best and should be the only way for people to better themselves, (if they are willing to work at it). For a select few that may be true. For those dirty wretched vile creatures like myself who comprise the masses of humanity I think that recent history, post depression and WWII, shows that it is a socially responsible government that is willing to tax those who have to help those who have not that makes life better for all. I'm not talking strictly about welfare here I'm talking about collage grants and the GI Bill. How many people were able to go to collage on these who wouldn't have been able to attend otherwise that went on to make discoveries in science or invent new products that resulted in increased profits for business and industry? Should only those people who can afford to pay their own way be allowed to attend collage? Would you close down the community collages which are primarily tax supported? How many small businesses which employ millions of American workers have been started with the help of government loans and grants? I suspect that many of these small business owners are among your growing list of millionaires. Or would it be better if only those people who could afford to start a new business without receiving any government financial aid be allowed to do so? I could go on but I won't I'll just say that all of these are programs that the republicans are reducing and would probably like to eliminate altogether. The truth of the matter is no matter how hard they work the average person is more likely to find them selves slipping into poverty through the loss of their job, illness or whatever than to rise up and join the ranks of the wealthy.
So if a millionaire has to pay out more at the end of their life so what. In all likelihood they probability received more from the government in terms of tax breaks and services when they were alive than the average person could dream of. The loopholes in the new bankruptcy bill that will allow the rich to keep most of what they own but would force those in the middle class to forfeit everything is just one glaring example of that. And it extends all the way down to basic services such as police, fire/rescue and garbage pickup. Remember Robb that it is the government that allows the rich to become rich and as Bush said, (The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway. Annandale Virginia, Aug. 9, 2004) so isn't it only fair that the rich repay a little more when they die.
Edited to fix link |
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him - Voltaire |
| Edited by - Stargirl on 08/08/2005 17:28:18 |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 18:40:32 [Permalink]
|
| We are all caught up in the capitalist death machine. |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 18:54:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dry_vby
We are all caught up in the capitalist death machine.
 |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 19:07:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Dry_vby
We are all caught up in the capitalist death machine.
[/quote]
I take it, by that reaction, that you haven't seen a documentary called "The corporation"?
http://www.thecorporation.com/index.php?page_id=2
|
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 22:08:54 [Permalink]
|
Response to Robb:
You are assuming that minorities have less of a chance to become millionaires. They may have to work harder and overcome some obstacles others do not.
This makes my brain hurt. If person A must work harder and overcome obstacles that person B doesn't have to, then person A has less of a chance of equal success.
Why should these people live under different rules than the rest of the country?
Because they have monumental advantages over the rest of society that leads to a concentration of power in the hands of a homogenous, unelected minority.
Even so, this country believes in the right to own property and the 5th amendment protects that right and to not have it taken away unjustly.
Tell that to our Supreme Court that recently ruled in favor of businesses' power to take property from less wealthy individual citizens for the sake of development.
What do you want to know other than it is discriminating against people that have money?
I'm a financially struggling grad student, whose husband (with student debt and two college degrees) was just employed for 9 months, soaring into huge amounts of even more debt, who teaches poor inner city kids through government funded social programs, and you are trying to get me to have sympathy for rich people. Now that's funny. Yeah, I feel so bad for those millionaires. Excuse me while I weep.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/09/2005 22:10:27 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
