I lol'ed...No, it's out of power, vote buying, and paying off favors/campaign promises/lobbyists.Originally Posted by Nessus
Seriously though, we do need taxes, but everynow and then the Fed needs to be reminded that it's not thier money they are spending, but someone elses'.
Again, if the Death Tax does not bring in a real amount of money, then it's not about the rich paying thier fair share...it's used as class warfare.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I would be curious to know Nessie's definition of what is "enough" taxation. Like how much of an economy should a government tax?
With such a broad meaningless question about the objectification of a vague concept, I think I can safely speak for Nessus.
About *this* much.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
There are specific numbers out there you know. If you can support taxing what parents give to their children, surely you can put some numbers behind what you think overall revenues should be versus GDP. It's not really a vague question, certainly not as vague as arguing for a death tax because of "fairness".
Let me put it this way. I think "how much of an economy should a government tax?" is a broad and vague question. Not going into relative statements like: "as vague as".
I take it "about this much" didn't cut it for you? How about an illustration?
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Like it or not, there were historical reasons for taxing inheritance. Mostly to have a progressive tax system, but also to prevent fortunes from concentrating too much power and influence. Think oil barons and railroad magnates, industrialists amassing huge wealth. They didn't want America to be an aristocracy, with dynasties acting like monopolies.
Here's an interesting history of the early days, when Mellon was Sec. of Treasury.
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readin...1?OpenDocument
I don't see how that follows. Just because I don't find something heinous doesn't mean I have numbers to pull out of my ass. And obviously it depends on who is taxing whom; the "American people" you so oft refer to seem to be drinking Pubbie kool-aid enough that it'd be infeasible to tax them anywhere near as much as a more homogeneous Volksgemeinschaft. If your question is how much should an average NY family be taxed as a portion of their income, I don't know.
A lil'moreLet me put it this way. I think "how much of an economy should a government tax?" is a broad and vague question. Not going into relative statements like: "as vague as".
I take it "about this much" didn't cut it for you? How about an illustration?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Yes, it was a response to crony capitalism. It doesn't make it right, nor has it been effective or even significantly revenue generating. Those who have tons of money have massive incentives to avoid it. Those who don't (but still fall under the arbitrary government definition of having "too many assets") face an onerous tax on possessions and money meant to stay within a family.
My question revolves around you arguing that Amurikans and people who oppose the death tax don't support any taxes. I'm saying that's not true at all, and asking for a general sense of how much of the economy you think should go towards government. I have a number in mind.
10.... 10 should go to guv ment 10. is good number. more than nuff for guv ment of amur kan.My question revolves around you arguing that Amurikans and people who oppose the death tax don't support any taxes. I'm saying that's not true at all, and asking for a general sense of how much of the economy you think should go towards government. I have a number in mind.
Interestingly, since WWII our number has been about 19-20%. Which isn't a bad thing, it's amazing how consistent it's been for the past 60 years.
Is it 100
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
The 'morality' of it was based on evening the playing field between uber-wealthy (with all their power) and everyone else. Same could be said about owning property, voting, and public education---advantages that used to only belong to white men.
Inheritance tax on the wealthy also encouraged large charitable donations and endowments for universities, hospitals, libraries, theatres, parks, museums, orphanages. That's part of the idea of "spreading wealth around" from the private sector, with a carrot (aka tax deductions) from the gummint.
It's not a bad system, actually. The 'filthy rich' can either choose to give a chunk of their wealth to things they value, or our evil gummint will levy taxes and put that money to work for the benefit of the general population. Maybe that will be things like public health clinics providing abortion services, or welfare programs like WIC or food stamps? There's no "control" over tax dollars, but they can designate donated dollars.
Plus, only donations will put their family name on the new Pediatric wing of a hospital or an Ivy League law library, or carry their legacy's charitable foundation, for all society to see. Tax dollars are anonymous.
You're wrong. The new federal inheritance tax will impact less than 1/10 of 1% of all Americans. They will still have billions of bucks to pass on, and their billions will continue to make multiples of millions more over time. They will still have plenty of money, and more than enough power. Why is that objectionable to you?Those who don't (but still fall under the arbitrary government definition of having "too many assets") face an onerous tax on possessions and money meant to stay within a family.
Can you name ANY wealthy family so diluted by the hardship of inheritance/estate taxes that their heirs became The Working Poor? No. Has it prevented ANY person from moving up the income or social status ladder? No.
In fact, very wealthy folks like Donald Trump have done just fine using other tax loopholes (including bankruptcy) to keep their money making more money, and their powers intact, along with their inheritance. Why isn't that objectionable to you?
My question revolves around you arguing that Amurikans and people who oppose the death tax don't support any taxes. I'm saying that's not true at all, and asking for a general sense of how much of the economy you think should go towards government. I have a number in mind.Then stop complaining about how teh evil gummint is taxing too much, or taking too much money in estate taxes.
We have more millionaires now than ever before, some are "nouveau riche" and some are "old money". We even have multiple billionaires now. We still have exclusions or special schemes to protect family farms and small businesses, so you can't use that as an appeal to emotion.
Unless I'm mistaken but we didn't have any billionaires a century ago. That's called inflation.
I don't see what is wrong with having many billionaires. That's something to be proud of, it means we are a country that creates wealth. American households are worth about $64 trillion collectively.
My point bringing up the 20% figure is that our government has tried taxing people more, but usually when it hits the 20% of GDP threshold the taxpayers melt away. We saw that recently in Oregon. It's not a constructive policy.
And that wealth is, for the most part, accumulated in the hands of a ridiculously small segment of the population. The collective value means little if the median is low, and disparities soaring.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Median and per capita are actually pretty reasonable, but some level of inequality is inevitable. Still, rising tide lifts most boats.
We had a few of them, but they came to be called Robber Barons.No, it wasn't just inflation that propelled millions of people upward on the income ladder. That's ridiculous.
Did I say having more wealthy people in our society was wrong? Nope. Am I suggesting that those people should share their wealth (which really means sharing power) with more people than just their blood relatives? Yes.I don't see what is wrong with having many billionaires. That's something to be proud of, it means we are a country that creates wealth. American households are worth about $64 trillion collectively.
Then stop complaining about our tax policies, if they "even out in the end", or "remain constant over time". Your parents can still leave you millions of family dollars without paying one red cent in federal estate taxes. Then you can continue to build upon that foundation, quite easily, and share that with your own children. Your kids might actually benefit MORE by a society that isn't strictly haves vs have nots, than what money or assets you bequeath to them upon your death, ya know.My point bringing up the 20% figure is that our government has tried taxing people more, but usually when it hits the 20% of GDP threshold the taxpayers melt away. We saw that recently in Oregon. It's not a constructive policy.
The idea that giving money to the government constitutes sharing your wealth is insane. I don't think anyone faults any of the dozens of billionaires who have pledged most of their money to charity for not giving their money to the government.
Suggestion is one thing, legislation is quite another. Apparently I'm one of the few who is uncomfortable with the idea that we should simply be satisfied with what the government allows us to keep of our own property.
The idea is that giving money to society in a defined approach is a preferable (or more efficient) way to share their wealth, than letting the government do it . It's actually a very Capitalistic theory, you know. Those billionaires didn't simply say "Tax us more, because we trust the government to make the best decisions." They also didn't volunteer to write a big check to the US Treasury, memo line saying, "pay down the national deficit". No, they wanted more control over their wealth. So they started foundations, endowments, activism for charity. Many have limited inheritance to relatives, and gave logical reasons.
Indeed, they did and that's good. So why compel the non-billionaires to fork over cash into the bureaucracy when they want to just give it to their kids?
That sounds vaguely confederate, from the time when slaves and women were considered property. It took a progressive government to define civil rights and make them legal. It also took an activist and progressive government to break up corporate monopolies.
And why do you KEEP using the same argument that's been refuted? There is NO federal inheritance tax below $5million from one parent, or $10million for married parents. There are ways to leave money and assets above that amount to their kids (or whoever the hell they choose), using trust funds or GRATs or loopholes. Small business and family farms are NOT affected.
If you want to keep harping on this for "principle", then harp on state inheritance/estate taxes. Those are all over the map and disconnected from federal law. Go ahead, look up New York vs Florida vs Kentucky.
You know, GGT, that sounds vaguely like you're still forcing your children to bathe in lye.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I don't know this Enoch the Red person. He may be totally new, he may be a member from the old place, who knows. Taking his post at face value, in the middle of a long thread with lots of tangents, my reply made sense. At least it did to me.....I want to know if he's just spouting Tea Party Constitutional bullshit he heard on Fox News, or if he's truly engaged in a discussion.
Fuzzy, that was a bad quick edit from you, really. Bringing my kids into this is not only lame, but totally off base. You've known that from years ago when we discussed school cafeteria food, FFS.
I'd have preferred to ask if you'd stopped beating your wife yet, but you'd take it as some bizzare attack on polygamous relationships between lesbian anenomes.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Actually I did on the news today. Looks like high-tax New York lost even more of its tax base to low-tax states.Go ahead, look up New York vs Florida vs Kentucky.
Are you saying that in your mind ownership of property is synonymous with slavery? I know you don't believe that tripe, GGT.
Try again.
Was that really your goal, GGT? Really? It sounds more like lazy cookie cutter thinking to me, but I've been out of the loop for awhile.
Hey, I'm not answering anything to Enoch the Red, until someone explains why all his post counts say 5.
It's Timmey.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
You don't have a clue.
Not much has changed, I see.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote