Death and Taxes....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Hang on, I think I'm missing something. Hazir's post reads, to me, that the state just gets the entire inheritance (I'm not saying anything about the merits of the idea here). Okay, fine. So your kid with two decently earning parents who own a home get killed, the kid goes into the system and is fed and housed by the state (or foster parents in practice, but anyhows). Kid turns 18, he has the clothes on his back and whatever she's earned working at Mickey Dee's after class. How is that kid any more shafted than the kid with parents who have virtually nothing to contribute to the kid's own new household?

---

The difference is that under the current system, the kid has indirect access to whatever money his parents had as he grows up, and then gets all the money once he turns 18. He faces no disadvantage relative to children who didn't lose their parents (in terms of money anyway). The Hazir alternative is being forced into whatever standard of living the state can guarantee you (which let's be honest is never particularly high) and then start life at 18 with absolutely nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The difference is that under the current system, the kid has indirect access to whatever money his parents had as he grows up, and then gets all the money once he turns 18. He faces no disadvantage relative to children who didn't lose their parents (in terms of money anyway). The Hazir alternative is being forced into whatever standard of living the state can guarantee you (which let's be honest is never particularly high) and then start life at 18 with absolutely nothing.

---

Sure, but no one is guaranteed a birth to a wealthy home, what is the difference whether the wealth wasn't there at the get-go or having it removed long before you're recognized as a full human being?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Sure, but no one is guaranteed a birth to a wealthy home, what is the difference whether the wealth wasn't there at the get-go or having it removed long before you're recognized as a full human being?

---

A vast majority of the population (in developed countries) has far more money than what the government would provide an orphan. For instance, about 70% of Americans own their own homes. You think the government is going to buy a home for each orphan? Give them $100k check when they hit 18?

"Some 56 percent of U.S. households headed by someone 45 years or older had net assets of $100,000 or more"

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=87939&page=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

A vast majority of the population (in developed countries) has far more money than what the government would provide an orphan. For instance, about 70% of Americans own their own homes. You think the government is going to buy a home for each orphan? Give them $100k check when they hit 18?

"Some 56 percent of U.S. households headed by someone 45 years or older had net assets of $100,000 or more"

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=87939&page=1

---

No, but I don't expect them to buy houses for children whose parents don't own one? It's like you didn't read what I wrote.

Wait how many 18yos own their own homes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

No, but I don't expect them to buy houses for children whose parents don't own one? It's like you didn't read what I wrote.

---

And I'm talking about people whose parents actually had assets. For those that didn't, Hazir's law would be irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And I'm talking about people whose parents actually had assets. For those that didn't, Hazir's law would be irrelevant.

---

Yes, but ostensibly someone with Hazir's view on the matter does not consider there to be any moral causality between the wealth of the parents and the offspring; it is irrelevant what your parents had. Ergo, losing your parents and their wealth at age 10 is no different from being born into assetless parents to begin with. Whereby hand-wringing about bankrupt ten-year-olds becomes meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Yes, but ostensibly someone with Hazir's view on the matter does not consider there to be any moral causality between the wealth of the parents and the offspring; it is irrelevant what your parents had. Ergo, losing your parents and their wealth at age 10 is no different from being born into assetless parents to begin with. Whereby hand-wringing about bankrupt ten-year-olds becomes meaningless.

---

I.E. The current situation where 40% of children are screwed if they become orphans is unfair, and we should replace it with one where 100% of children are screwed if they become orphans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I.E. The current situation where 40% of children are screwed if they become orphans is unfair, and we should replace it with one where 100% of children are screwed if they become orphans.

---

That's how FYGM works, isn't it?

You could put the money into a national orphanage fund and pay for college or embezzlement or something crazy. Honestly though, what are the real numbers here? How many orphans are there with the fabulous wealth we're talking about? Aren't most of them from normal or poor households anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

You could put the money into a national orphanage fund and pay for college or embezzlement or something crazy. Honestly though, what are the real numbers here? How many orphans are there with the fabulous wealth we're talking about? Aren't most of them from normal or poor households anyway?

---

Erm, 56% of households have over $100k in assets.

Considering that Hazir wants to use this money to pay for all government expenditures, I doubt he'd have enough left to be super generous to orphans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Erm, 56% of households have over $100k in assets.

---

Yes and what I'm asking is, what percentage of 10-year-old orphans come from those semi-wealthy debt-free households. Not as a crotch-punch mind you, just curious as to how relevant this is to reality where most people aren't 10 year old orphans but rather middle class middle-aged/senior "orphans" with established lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Yes and what I'm asking is, what percentage of 10-year-old orphans come from those semi-wealthy debt-free households. Not as a crotch-punch mind you, just curious as to how relevant this is to reality where most people aren't 10 year old orphans but rather middle class middle-aged/senior "orphans" with established lives.

---

Do we have any particular reason to believe that poor 10-year-olds are significantly more likely to lose their parents than rich 10-year-olds?

And I'm just pointing out the absurdity of Hazir's position. He's basically destroying the family as a social unit, as he's trying to destroy any benefit one has from being brought up by their parents. The only incentive Hazir creates is for people to stop working the second they make enough money to live for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Do we have any particular reason to believe that poor 10-year-olds are significantly more likely to lose their parents than rich 10-year-olds?

---

Poorer physical and mental health, risk-factors such as smoking, drinking, drug-use, more likely to come from a single-parent household and thus have only one parent to lose.


Btw, the passage you quoted referred specifically to households with a head over the age of 45.

Quote:

---

And I'm just pointing out the absurdity of Hazir's position. He's basically destroying the family as a social unit, as he's trying to destroy any benefit one has from being brought up by their parents. The only incentive Hazir creates is for people to stop working the second they make enough money to live for themselves.

---

I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. At the same time, no-one can know for sure before retirement exactly how much money they'll need or want in the decades after retirement. Moreover, there's nothing stopping them from sneaking their 18-year-old kids some cash or macbooks and tents.

alas, there are people for whom money matters a little too much. See link in previous page :( may be in our best interest to keep things as they are :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

My simple solution is; no taxation on labour or capital of living people and a 100% tax on vertical transfers of wealth within families (including estates).

---

Hahahaha...wait, you're serious?

So we would really never own anything, just borrowing it (and growing it through our labor) from the state...and then leave nothing behind?

Isn't that how the Church consolidated power and land by forbidding priests to marry, thus no heirs?

Brilliant.

I don't think people will tolerate Hazir's idea, and I don't think we should as a society. If people work to own certain items, I don't see why they can't pass them on to their kids.

It does solve some problems of people starting on a equal footing etc... There are also loop holes even if it was the rule, what if I buy my kid a house for her birthday, and a bunch of diamonds for Christmas. Then when I die sure my stuff goes to the state, but my children still get a bunch of money. Are we going to ban presents, or monitor suchs gifts? nonperishable/resellable gifts can't exceed a certain value. It's an interesting idea just don't much like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

No, over here Capital Gains is after the corporation pays its taxes. (Correct Wiggin/Loki?)

---

No. Capital gains are 'profits realized after selling a stock', and it's based on purchase vs sale price. Higher rates for short term holdings (I think it still means holding a stock less than two years?) and long term. Traders and speculators that buy and sell at high frequency speeds, and often never "hold" a stock for more than a minute before they sell it, apparently have another rate, or use a loophole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

So we can agree that taxes are to raise revenue for the government to function correct, and to raise that revenue in the most efficient way possible?

---

Not just efficiently, but "equitably". That's why our income tax code has traditionally been "progressive", and why a flat tax has opponents. 15% of $30,000 in labor income is vastly different in nature than 15% of $3,000,000 in investment income.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, buy doesn't the company pay the corporate tax rate first, then pay out the capital gains (which gets taxed?) SO this 15% is a bit of a lie...er misstatement.

And did you see how much of his income he gave to charity? I'd say as an individual, he is doing a better job for the poor and helpful programs than any bureaucrat.

---

This isn't just about Romney, but our whole tax code. He just has the good fortune to be able to pay for high-priced accountants and tax attorneys, whose sole job is to find best ways for clients like him to avoid paying taxes on ANY income. :bulb:

Romney was also to Financial Consultant as "investment" instead of "labor/work", and get a lower tax rate. I think it's a carried-trade type of thing, whether they get a % of clients' profits, or an annual % of their portfolio valuation.

If he was never on the 'payroll', he also never paid those taxes that fund SS, Medicare and Medicaid. It's perfectly legal, and 'Wall Street' does it all the time, by hiring/paying "consultants and advisors" whose work isn't taxed as labor. People who actually labor for their wages actually pay more income taxes than those who use money to make money. That's what's fucked up.

All this outrage is nice but how many companies actually pay the statutory corporate income tax? About as many as there are people who pay federal income tax?