Tax plan not looking so hot.

[Greoric]

so you take Wealth of Nations verbatim?

even though when that was written (1776) the system of Aristocracy was still very much in place in lieu of modern capitalism?

I mean I like Thomas Paine's Common Sense also, but I don't take it as gospel if you feel me

Also, do you pay taxes on gifts you receive? You don't right?

The 100% inheritance tax over X amount is absurd. If anyone looking to pass on anything to their kids reaches that threshold, what's the incentive to generate more wealth after that?

What a shitty way to handicap the growth of prosperity. @lecter another sociopath whose only concern is equality of outcome over the good of society for the record books.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

what's the actual argument for that?

taxing inheritance so high? 'poor people that did nothing to earn it deserve it more than you'? or even worse, 'the government deserves it more than you'

presumably it doesn't actually effect smart rich people as surely trusts and other pensions are not subject to those right?
or they hide money offshore, etc... to purposely avoid stupid stuff like this.

 

[Greoric]

what's the actual argument for that?

taxing inheritance so high? 'poor people that did nothing to earn it deserve it more than you'? or even worse, 'the government deserves it more than you'

presumably it doesn't actually effect smart rich people as surely trusts and other pensions are not subject to those right?
or they hide money offshore, etc... to purposely avoid stupid stuff like this.

Well like Jack the snake said, if you have money it hurts people.... so, you know, stop like advocating hurting people and stuff.

 

[lecter]

The 100% inheritance tax over X amount is absurd. If anyone looking to pass on anything to their kids reaches that threshold, what's the incentive to generate more wealth after that?

What a shitty way to handicap the growth of prosperity. @lecter another sociopath whose only concern is equality of outcome over the good of society for the record books.

I have a new avatar for Jack

 

[Jack V Savage]

so you take Wealth of Nations verbatim?

Take it verbatim? Do you even English?

even though when that was written (1776) the system of Aristocracy was still very much in place in lieu of modern capitalism?

That's a good point. When people had actual experience with the kind of system that Greoric advocates and were advocating moving toward capitalism, limiting inheritance was a high-priority issue. Over time, uneducated people like Greoric have neither memory of it nor an understanding of what people thought at the time and want to repeat mistakes of the past.

This is some absurd shit. Government is imposing private ownership over society, which already exists outside our species... by extorting the wealth of private ownership?

I understand your theory, but in reality, gov't imposes private ownership on society.

And excuse you, you didn't explain how someone's privately generated wealth hurts you.

People are not privately generating land. And resources are limited. If one person controls them, no one else does. So, yes, if the gov't is granting someone else larger control over it, that hurts everyone else.

Does it hurt you less if government gets it? Why would we want all wealth to be owned and distributed by government then if private ownership is explicitly harmful?

We know that a system of mostly private property (subject to regulations and taxation) leads to greater wealth generation than the types of common ownership that existing before the great social engineering program of capitalism resulted in. As long as the product of that superior wealth generation is well-distributed, everyone is better off. Your preferred system--where beneficiaries of unearned wealth are able to leech off workers with no limitations--leaves almost everyone worse off (ultimately, even the capital owners are fucked).

 

[HomerThompson]

Wrong. The government's getting it and wasting half of it.

What do you think happens when an inheritance gets passed on?

99+% of the time the family gets money and uses it to better their lives i some way, and possibly the community around them. Less than 1% of the time it's a huge inheritance that leads to shitty generations of entitled heirs that use the money to push policy that benefits the accumulation of wealth for individuals over the well being of society.

 

[HomerThompson]

If the modern disparity in wealth is your concern then you actually want government out, because to the extent that the middle class is getting decimated and finanicers are raking it in, it's by consequence of central banks, which are the product of.... you guessed it.

Also if your concern is a concentration of wealth, wouldn't it be safe to say that you should also be concerned about a concentration of power?

Of course. That's why I want money out of politics, lobbyists away from writing bills, and a more progressive tax system used to expand beneficial social programs. Programs such as healthcare and education.

 

[HomerThompson]

The argument that political authority is justified by the Democratic process is also fundamentally flawed.
It's up to you to explain why a government can legitimately engage in behavior which would certainly be criminal if done by any individual.
I mean that's an old and legit question to ask, it's not self-evident why you or I or Jack can't go around and tax people on our own.
That argument that a majority vote in general or our Democratic process, in particular, are the foundation of political authority doesn't really answer that question. If I and Georic sit in a room with you, I have $100 in my pocket, both of you have $10 each, and we vote on if it wasn't a better idea to lump together our money and equally redistribute it in a fair way, 1/3 to each person in the room, how would that vote probably go?
Does that justify taking my money?
If a gang of robbers vote before they rob somebody, isn't it robbery if they outvote the victim?
If Nazi Germany had a vote over whether or not they should burn Jews in ovens, would such a vote give them the authority to burn Jews?
So voting doesn't explain why the government stands out in any way. It's not a sufficient explanation of political authority.

I didn't argue that voting is the be all end all. Our constitution is a set of rules to govern our society. There's a reason we protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Taxation in the US is hardly a tyranny of the majority. Even poor people hate taxes. But, unless you can explain a more successful model for society than a constitutional republic, I don't need to argue in favor of the success of our system. It's readily apparent.

 

[HomerThompson]

Then you don't think private markets produce and allocate resources more efficiently than government?



Why would you reference an existing amount of resources in the market with a discussion on taxes?

Of course they don't, because private companies are pure tyranny.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

how does government granted land rights hurt others?

no seriously? especially if the 'others' don't have the means to purchase and maintain that property?

I mean there's a finite amount of diamonds too, if a rich guy buys a huge engagement ring is he hurting the poor that couldn't afford that anyway?

I understand what JVS is essentially saying, but clearly I'm not interpreting it the same way
edit: I'm asking, not trying to condascend

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

If someone is inheriting over 5 million worth of shit such that they have to pay some federal tax on it it's hard for me to fathom how that's getting "broken in half" and completely run out of business. Maybe some math would be illuminating?

Most farmer operations are classified as asset rich and cash poor. This means that the estate tax can only be paid through the sale of land, equipment, or (in the instance of ranchers) livestock and breeding stock.

This means that your children will have to sell at least half (if your lucky) of the assets you spent your lifetime to achieve, just to pay a punitive tax. Many farms can no longer operate without the essential equipment and/or assets that had to be sold in order to pay this punitive tax.

I will do all I can to ensure the fruits of my labors are passed down to my children. Being forced to give away half of everything I own upon my death accomplishes nothing, other than a socialist's smile.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Society and it's laws are what allowed the individual to accumulate that much property to begin with. We, as a society, decide how to allocate resources to best create a stable and conflict free existence for everyone.

Wrong, there's only one source of all wealth, and it's not Society.

There's only one source of all wealth:

Individual human intelligence.

 

[HomerThompson]

how does government granted land rights hurt others?

no seriously? especially if the 'others' don't have the means to purchase and maintain that property?

I mean there's a finite amount of diamonds too, if a rich guy buys a huge engagement ring is he hurting the poor that couldn't afford that anyway?

I understand what JVS is essentially saying, but clearly I'm not interpreting it the same way
edit: I'm asking, not trying to condascend

Because land is a finite resource.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Because land is a finite resource.

Same can be said for many things:

Water
Gold
Rembrandt paintings
Oil
Granite
Etc. Etc. Etc.

The price mechanism is able to find who will best make use of these resources.

Me having a gold coin, in no way harms you.

Me having a strip of land somewhere, in no way harms you.

 

[HomerThompson]

Same can be said for many things:

Water
Gold
Rembrandt paintings
Oil
Granite
Etc. Etc. Etc.

The price mechanism is able to find who will best make use of these resources.

Me having a gold coin, in no way harms you.

Me having a strip of land somewhere, in no way harms you.

Two families owning 90% of the land in a country would certainly harm people though, no? Or 1 person owning 90% of the freshwater in a country, etc.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Two families owning 90% of the land in a country would certainly harm people though, no? Or 1 person owning 90% of the freshwater in a country, etc.

At one point in our state's history, Ted Turner was the largest single landowner in Nebraska. I was in no way harmed by him owning a significant portion of my state.

Water get into the "Problem of the Commons". I'd be happy to debate you on this in another thread, I do all I can to not derail threads.

Those who have a fear of private businesses setting up some form of modern-day feudalism, forget one very important thing:

Feudalism is a legal structure. Feudalism can only be enforced by the state.

 

[Greoric]

I understand your theory, but in reality, gov't imposes private ownership on society.

Jesus Christ that's such a whack job nutty statement. Nevermind that its demonstrably untrue just by observation of how animals trace territorial boundaries for themselves, but you only have to acknowledge within yourself or anyone else how they pursue self interests.

@HomerThompson this is why you are off your rocker if you want to associate yourself with these people. Look how nutbar that statement is.

People are not privately generating land. And resources are limited. If one person controls them, no one else does. So, yes, if the gov't is granting someone else larger control over it, that hurts everyone else.

No but people, private individuals, generate wealth off the land and capital they own, so your statement was silly that they're hurting people by mere possession of wealth... Another whack job goebbels double speak from you.

We know that a system of mostly private property (subject to regulations and taxation) leads to greater wealth generation than the types of common ownership that existing before the great social engineering program of capitalism resulted in.

If private ownership is beneficial and allocates resources more effectively, why would private ownership then be hurting people?

 

[Greoric]

Of course they don't, because private companies are pure tyranny.

 

[Greoric]

Of course. That's why I want money out of politics, lobbyists away from writing bills, and a more progressive tax system used to expand beneficial social programs. Programs such as healthcare and education.

So your plan to get money out of politics is to expand the influence politics have over daily life and therefore the incentive for lobbyists to buy even more favors? Makes sense.

 

[Greoric]

99+% of the time the family gets money and uses it to better their lives i some way, and possibly the community around them. Less than 1% of the time it's a huge inheritance that leads to shitty generations of entitled heirs that use the money to push policy that benefits the accumulation of wealth for individuals over the well being of society.

Hold on, why don't we run through what actually happens with the money that's received with inheritance. Do they stuff it under their mattresses? Do they throw it in a bank account and let it sit there? Do they spend it? What do you think actually happens with that money?