• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

My plan for the estate tax and wealth redistribution.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Government deciding how much or how little wealth/money one should have is...WRONG.
philosphically speaking, do you think that there would be something wrong with a society that voluntarily destroyed its monetary wealth upon death?
Yes.
so if i want to burn all my shit to the ground when i die, society should not let that happen?
It's your shit. Do with it what you want....

what corner are trying to back me into?
i'm just trying to understand your position where is is bad for a society to destroy the possessions of the dead and ok for society to destroy the possessions of the dead at the same time. I don't see how it can be both good and bad at the same time.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: mugs
Why stop at $5 million? There's no room in your logic for allowing such a huge inheritance. Why not take it all the way - tax any inheritance at 90%. Oh wait, that would negatively affect people like you. :roll:
My logic is that if you want, you should be able to give your child enough money to live off of as a gift. But do not like the idea of giving someone so much money it becomes "power" and a dynasty.
You couldnt live on 5 million for 75 years. Not really.
Yes you could. No one just puts the whole amount in this checking account and lives off the principal, they invest it and it draws interest.
I have a series 6, 63, and 7 license, and Ive done the math. It cant be done.

I guess it depends on what kind of lifestyle you want. But I wouldnt want the one 5 million over 75 years would provide.

5 million x .02 (very poor rate of return) = 100k a year. reinvest 2/3rd of that to keep up with inflation and you still have 33k a year for the rest of your life, and paced to inflation. sure, thats low, but very doable even with farcically low interest rates. bump that up to even 5% and you have a very reasonable inflation paced income for life.
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,308
1
81
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: cubeless
it's pretty obvious that you have not the slightest concept of what you say in your first sentence by the remainder of your stupid post...

it is not yours, or the government's, right to to decide what i can do with my money... taxation that is punitive to wealth is just the advance of the socialistic agenda once the have nots eventually get involved in the political process in sufficient numbers to vote themselves support...
It's YOUR money, not your childs' money. WHY? IMPORTANT: Just as one born from the Earth, and all production and economics trace back to the natural resources of the Earth. You do not deserve anything more than what you worked for. Because a child hit the "sperm lottery" and was born beneath wealth, how does that in a moral or philosophical sense equal to them inheriting large amounts of wealth?

Each person's conscious born randomly to a random physical form (our body) is not in any way entitled to the product of the work and effort of others. Your children are only a genealogical extension of you, not an extension of your effort or reputation.

once u get out of high school and flip burgers for a couple years you might start to understand... now just make sure that you never eat food or take shelter from your parents again... the sad thing is that you are probably old enough to vote...
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
Originally posted by: cubeless
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: cubeless
it's pretty obvious that you have not the slightest concept of what you say in your first sentence by the remainder of your stupid post...

it is not yours, or the government's, right to to decide what i can do with my money... taxation that is punitive to wealth is just the advance of the socialistic agenda once the have nots eventually get involved in the political process in sufficient numbers to vote themselves support...
It's YOUR money, not your childs' money. WHY? IMPORTANT: Just as one born from the Earth, and all production and economics trace back to the natural resources of the Earth. You do not deserve anything more than what you worked for. Because a child hit the "sperm lottery" and was born beneath wealth, how does that in a moral or philosophical sense equal to them inheriting large amounts of wealth?

Each person's conscious born randomly to a random physical form (our body) is not in any way entitled to the product of the work and effort of others. Your children are only a genealogical extension of you, not an extension of your effort or reputation.

once u get out of high school and flip burgers for a couple years you might start to understand... now just make sure that you never eat food or take shelter from your parents again... the sad thing is that you are probably old enough to vote...
this is a stupid argument. what are you 12?

(see what i did there)
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,308
1
81
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: cubeless
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: cubeless
it's pretty obvious that you have not the slightest concept of what you say in your first sentence by the remainder of your stupid post...

it is not yours, or the government's, right to to decide what i can do with my money... taxation that is punitive to wealth is just the advance of the socialistic agenda once the have nots eventually get involved in the political process in sufficient numbers to vote themselves support...
It's YOUR money, not your childs' money. WHY? IMPORTANT: Just as one born from the Earth, and all production and economics trace back to the natural resources of the Earth. You do not deserve anything more than what you worked for. Because a child hit the "sperm lottery" and was born beneath wealth, how does that in a moral or philosophical sense equal to them inheriting large amounts of wealth?

Each person's conscious born randomly to a random physical form (our body) is not in any way entitled to the product of the work and effort of others. Your children are only a genealogical extension of you, not an extension of your effort or reputation.

once u get out of high school and flip burgers for a couple years you might start to understand... now just make sure that you never eat food or take shelter from your parents again... the sad thing is that you are probably old enough to vote...
this is a stupid argument. what are you 12?

(see what i did there)
the argument is that people who've created nothing are always happy to say no one should have anything... if i want to work to give my kids stuff it's just the same as me spending it on me...

i agree the argument is stupid, because the premise is stupid... but this is p&n and if no one argued about stupid things it would be reallly quiet in here...
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
Originally posted by: cubeless
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: cubeless
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: cubeless
it's pretty obvious that you have not the slightest concept of what you say in your first sentence by the remainder of your stupid post...

it is not yours, or the government's, right to to decide what i can do with my money... taxation that is punitive to wealth is just the advance of the socialistic agenda once the have nots eventually get involved in the political process in sufficient numbers to vote themselves support...
It's YOUR money, not your childs' money. WHY? IMPORTANT: Just as one born from the Earth, and all production and economics trace back to the natural resources of the Earth. You do not deserve anything more than what you worked for. Because a child hit the "sperm lottery" and was born beneath wealth, how does that in a moral or philosophical sense equal to them inheriting large amounts of wealth?

Each person's conscious born randomly to a random physical form (our body) is not in any way entitled to the product of the work and effort of others. Your children are only a genealogical extension of you, not an extension of your effort or reputation.

once u get out of high school and flip burgers for a couple years you might start to understand... now just make sure that you never eat food or take shelter from your parents again... the sad thing is that you are probably old enough to vote...
this is a stupid argument. what are you 12?

(see what i did there)
the argument is that people who've created nothing are always happy to say no one should have anything... if i want to work to give my kids stuff it's just the same as me spending it on me...

i agree the argument is stupid, because the premise is stupid... but this is p&n and if no one argued about stupid things it would be reallly quiet in here...
i was more talking about you calling him a burger flipper and being in highschool. I'm not sure what basis you have for that, so lets leave that kind of shit to booberfett or whatever his name is.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,276
103
106
Sigh, yet another closet socialist who wants to forcibly redistribute wealth from those that create it and earn it to those that don't.

Are you perhaps forgetting that many people do a lot of work and sacrifice so they can pass the benefits of that labor to their children so that they don't need to make those sacrifices? Who the hell are you or anyone else to decide where someone's wealth "should" go other than where they wanted it to go? I work my ass off so my kids will have a good life. Your plan would basically say "don't bother working hard, all the extra money will be distributed so everyone is "equal" with a level playing field.

Please, the stupidity of that whole notion would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that lots of people in positions of power have the same mentality.
 

scruffypup

Senior member
Feb 3, 2006
375
0
0
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: cubeless
it's pretty obvious that you have not the slightest concept of what you say in your first sentence by the remainder of your stupid post...

it is not yours, or the government's, right to to decide what i can do with my money... taxation that is punitive to wealth is just the advance of the socialistic agenda once the have nots eventually get involved in the political process in sufficient numbers to vote themselves support...
It's YOUR money, not your childs' money. WHY? IMPORTANT: Just as one born from the Earth, and all production and economics trace back to the natural resources of the Earth. You do not deserve anything more than what you worked for. Because a child hit the "sperm lottery" and was born beneath wealth, how does that in a moral or philosophical sense equal to them inheriting large amounts of wealth?

Each person's conscious born randomly to a random physical form (our body) is not in any way entitled to the product of the work and effort of others. Your children are only a genealogical extension of you, not an extension of your effort or reputation.
Far out maaaaaaaan. We are like one with the earth and the trees and nature. Yaaahhh maaan.


Pass some of that over here.
Do you think that there is something fundamentally wrong with there being a level playing field?
I think this is someone who is ticked that the sperm that became him didn't hit the winning lotto numbers and is showing some penis envy,... in that he wishes his mom was envying someone else's penis prior to his creation,....

Pro-Wealth redistributors tend to be jealous of other's possessions,.... always wanting what someone else has.

The playing field is fine by the way,.. anyone can amass a large amount of money in their lifetime if they are smart, opportunistic, hardworking, etc,... it has been done millions of times, and will continue to be done so.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,271
3,323
126
Originally posted by: scruffypup
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: cubeless
it's pretty obvious that you have not the slightest concept of what you say in your first sentence by the remainder of your stupid post...

it is not yours, or the government's, right to to decide what i can do with my money... taxation that is punitive to wealth is just the advance of the socialistic agenda once the have nots eventually get involved in the political process in sufficient numbers to vote themselves support...
It's YOUR money, not your childs' money. WHY? IMPORTANT: Just as one born from the Earth, and all production and economics trace back to the natural resources of the Earth. You do not deserve anything more than what you worked for. Because a child hit the "sperm lottery" and was born beneath wealth, how does that in a moral or philosophical sense equal to them inheriting large amounts of wealth?

Each person's conscious born randomly to a random physical form (our body) is not in any way entitled to the product of the work and effort of others. Your children are only a genealogical extension of you, not an extension of your effort or reputation.
Far out maaaaaaaan. We are like one with the earth and the trees and nature. Yaaahhh maaan.


Pass some of that over here.
Do you think that there is something fundamentally wrong with there being a level playing field?
I think this is someone who is ticked that the sperm that became him didn't hit the winning lotto numbers and is showing some penis envy,... in that he wishes his mom was envying someone else's penis prior to his creation,....

Pro-Wealth redistributors tend to be jealous of other's possessions,.... always wanting what someone else has.

The playing field is fine by the way,.. anyone can amass a large amount of money in their lifetime if they are smart, opportunistic, hardworking, etc,... it has been done millions of times, and will continue to be done so.
That doesn't really apply to this argument. Seems to me that Dead People don't care what happens to their Wealth. Prior to their Death they might, but once Dead, they're Dead.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: glenn1
Create whatever plan you want, the rich won't give a shit. That's what offshore tax havens are for.
No such thing anymore. You will almost always get caught these days, I've looked into it.

It's hard to hide hundreds of millions of dollars or even billions, especially if people knew you had it in the first place.
Uh, you are pretty misguided on this, among other things. We agree on the basic positives about the Estate Tax, but not your claim that government programs generally do harm.

You need to do some more reading or research about the offshore tax havens. They're doing quite well - what do you think the huge industry surrounding them is about?

Indeed, I jsut saw a number earlier today that the government estimates that 99% of wage income is taxed, but only 70% of other income.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
Originally posted by: scruffypup
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: cubeless
it's pretty obvious that you have not the slightest concept of what you say in your first sentence by the remainder of your stupid post...

it is not yours, or the government's, right to to decide what i can do with my money... taxation that is punitive to wealth is just the advance of the socialistic agenda once the have nots eventually get involved in the political process in sufficient numbers to vote themselves support...
It's YOUR money, not your childs' money. WHY? IMPORTANT: Just as one born from the Earth, and all production and economics trace back to the natural resources of the Earth. You do not deserve anything more than what you worked for. Because a child hit the "sperm lottery" and was born beneath wealth, how does that in a moral or philosophical sense equal to them inheriting large amounts of wealth?

Each person's conscious born randomly to a random physical form (our body) is not in any way entitled to the product of the work and effort of others. Your children are only a genealogical extension of you, not an extension of your effort or reputation.
Far out maaaaaaaan. We are like one with the earth and the trees and nature. Yaaahhh maaan.


Pass some of that over here.
Do you think that there is something fundamentally wrong with there being a level playing field?
I think this is someone who is ticked that the sperm that became him didn't hit the winning lotto numbers and is showing some penis envy,... in that he wishes his mom was envying someone else's penis prior to his creation,....

Pro-Wealth redistributors tend to be jealous of other's possessions,.... always wanting what someone else has.

The playing field is fine by the way,.. anyone can amass a large amount of money in their lifetime if they are smart, opportunistic, hardworking, etc,... it has been done millions of times, and will continue to be done so.
statistically, this is not true

edit: 9000th post :D
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,761
777
126
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: mugs
Why stop at $5 million? There's no room in your logic for allowing such a huge inheritance. Why not take it all the way - tax any inheritance at 90%. Oh wait, that would negatively affect people like you. :roll:
My logic is that if you want, you should be able to give your child enough money to live off of as a gift. But do not like the idea of giving someone so much money it becomes "power" and a dynasty.
You couldnt live on 5 million for 75 years. Not really.
Yes you could. No one just puts the whole amount in this checking account and lives off the principal, they invest it and it draws interest.
I have a series 6, 63, and 7 license, and Ive done the math. It cant be done.

I guess it depends on what kind of lifestyle you want. But I wouldnt want the one 5 million over 75 years would provide.

5 million x .02 (very poor rate of return) = 100k a year. reinvest 2/3rd of that to keep up with inflation and you still have 33k a year for the rest of your life, and paced to inflation. sure, thats low, but very doable even with farcically low interest rates. bump that up to even 5% and you have a very reasonable inflation paced income for life.
No thanks. I'll continue working. I havent lived on 35k/yr in over 20 years. Like I said, it depends on what kind of lifestyle you want. 35k isnt a lifestyle-its just getting by.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,761
777
126
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Government deciding how much or how little wealth/money one should have is...WRONG.
philosphically speaking, do you think that there would be something wrong with a society that voluntarily destroyed its monetary wealth upon death?
Yes.
so if i want to burn all my shit to the ground when i die, society should not let that happen?
It's your shit. Do with it what you want....

what corner are trying to back me into?
i'm just trying to understand your position where is is bad for a society to destroy the possessions of the dead and ok for society to destroy the possessions of the dead at the same time. I don't see how it can be both good and bad at the same time.
I havent taken both sides of the argument...you must have misread something or I wasnt clear.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1

I havent taken both sides of the argument...you must have misread something or I wasnt clear.
its seems to me that you have stated that is is ok for a society to destroy its assets upon death when you look at it from the individual perspective but not from the viewpoint of the greater whole.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,072
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: mugs
Why stop at $5 million? There's no room in your logic for allowing such a huge inheritance. Why not take it all the way - tax any inheritance at 90%. Oh wait, that would negatively affect people like you. :roll:
My logic is that if you want, you should be able to give your child enough money to live off of as a gift. But do not like the idea of giving someone so much money it becomes "power" and a dynasty.
You couldnt live on 5 million for 75 years. Not really.
Yes you could. No one just puts the whole amount in this checking account and lives off the principal, they invest it and it draws interest.
I have a series 6, 63, and 7 license, and Ive done the math. It cant be done.

I guess it depends on what kind of lifestyle you want. But I wouldnt want the one 5 million over 75 years would provide.

5 million x .02 (very poor rate of return) = 100k a year. reinvest 2/3rd of that to keep up with inflation and you still have 33k a year for the rest of your life, and paced to inflation. sure, thats low, but very doable even with farcically low interest rates. bump that up to even 5% and you have a very reasonable inflation paced income for life.
No thanks. I'll continue working. I havent lived on 35k/yr in over 20 years. Like I said, it depends on what kind of lifestyle you want. 35k isnt a lifestyle-its just getting by.
to put it into more realistic terms, lets assume 7% annually

that 350k per year stick 100k back in to deal with any inflation, and you are pulling down a solid 250k a year pre-tax. if you can't get by on that comfortably are are really doing something wrong. not to be overly cynical, but do you truly expect to earn significantly more than that?
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,199
4
76
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: mugs
Why stop at $5 million? There's no room in your logic for allowing such a huge inheritance. Why not take it all the way - tax any inheritance at 90%. Oh wait, that would negatively affect people like you. :roll:
My logic is that if you want, you should be able to give your child enough money to live off of as a gift. But do not like the idea of giving someone so much money it becomes "power" and a dynasty.
You couldnt live on 5 million for 75 years. Not really.
Yes you could. No one just puts the whole amount in this checking account and lives off the principal, they invest it and it draws interest.
I have a series 6, 63, and 7 license, and Ive done the math. It cant be done.

I guess it depends on what kind of lifestyle you want. But I wouldnt want the one 5 million over 75 years would provide.

5 million x .02 (very poor rate of return) = 100k a year. reinvest 2/3rd of that to keep up with inflation and you still have 33k a year for the rest of your life, and paced to inflation. sure, thats low, but very doable even with farcically low interest rates. bump that up to even 5% and you have a very reasonable inflation paced income for life.
No thanks. I'll continue working. I havent lived on 35k/yr in over 20 years. Like I said, it depends on what kind of lifestyle you want. 35k isnt a lifestyle-its just getting by.
The average person won't make $5 million in their lifetime. With today's numbers, neither does the average household.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,761
777
126
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1

I havent taken both sides of the argument...you must have misread something or I wasnt clear.
its seems to me that you have stated that is is ok for a society to destroy its assets upon death when you look at it from the individual perspective but not from the viewpoint of the greater whole.
Then you misunderstood. I dont believe in ANY estate taxes, as I believe leaving that money in the private sector does both the individual and society better. We can agree to disagree.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,761
777
126
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: mugs
Why stop at $5 million? There's no room in your logic for allowing such a huge inheritance. Why not take it all the way - tax any inheritance at 90%. Oh wait, that would negatively affect people like you. :roll:
My logic is that if you want, you should be able to give your child enough money to live off of as a gift. But do not like the idea of giving someone so much money it becomes "power" and a dynasty.
You couldnt live on 5 million for 75 years. Not really.
Yes you could. No one just puts the whole amount in this checking account and lives off the principal, they invest it and it draws interest.
I have a series 6, 63, and 7 license, and Ive done the math. It cant be done.

I guess it depends on what kind of lifestyle you want. But I wouldnt want the one 5 million over 75 years would provide.

5 million x .02 (very poor rate of return) = 100k a year. reinvest 2/3rd of that to keep up with inflation and you still have 33k a year for the rest of your life, and paced to inflation. sure, thats low, but very doable even with farcically low interest rates. bump that up to even 5% and you have a very reasonable inflation paced income for life.
No thanks. I'll continue working. I havent lived on 35k/yr in over 20 years. Like I said, it depends on what kind of lifestyle you want. 35k isnt a lifestyle-its just getting by.
to put it into more realistic terms, lets assume 7% annually

that 350k per year stick 100k back in to deal with any inflation, and you are pulling down a solid 250k a year pre-tax. if you can't get by on that comfortably are are really doing something wrong. not to be overly cynical, but do you truly expect to earn significantly more than that?
Yes. And 250k/yr would be comfortable. We agree on that.
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,181
2
81
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I have a series 6, 63, and 7 license, and Ive done the math. It cant be done.

I guess it depends on what kind of lifestyle you want. But I wouldnt want the one 5 million over 75 years would provide.
You must be joking dude! That is honestly the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard on an internet forum.

With $5 million you can collect nearly a quarter of a million dollars a year in income if you invest is CONSERVATIVELY and you can have it adjust for inflation.

Ever heard of say mutual funds? Bond funds? REITS? With US Treasuries you can live like a king.
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,181
2
81
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Each person's conscious born randomly to a random physical form (our body) is not in any way entitled to the product of the work and effort of others. Your children are only a genealogical extension of you, not an extension of your effort or reputation.
Make up your mind.

First you start this thread by saying that we're all entitled to the results of the work of others (by the mandatory redistribution of wealth upon death), then you say that we aren't entitled to the product of others' work. There's a disconnect here.

ZV
Incorrect. I start off by saying that each person at birth is deserving of some allowance of the natural resources of the Earth as each person is a sovereign individual, just as we were given this Earth and it's resources at the start of modern human development by our Creator without having earned it, so should each individual person be worthy of their fair dividend in modern times.

Furthermore, my point is to correct the balance of power and philosophical injustice behind having being born in a position of influence.
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,181
2
81
Originally posted by: cubeless
once u get out of high school and flip burgers for a couple years you might start to understand... now just make sure that you never eat food or take shelter from your parents again... the sad thing is that you are probably old enough to vote...
I do well for myself and I'm well into my twenties. Furthermore, when you realize that you and I have done nothing to deserve our intelligence and ability, which we by no choice of our own were born with, you will learn to see things differently and with more compassion towards those who were not born with these traits.
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,428
45
91
Would gift my money to my offspring and then have them open a joint checking account that I have access to for the remainder of my life. Upon my death I'd die a pauper (or at your threshold of 5 mil) and my kids would still have my cash.

<--- not having kids so doesn't really care
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,181
2
81
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Sigh, yet another closet socialist who wants to forcibly redistribute wealth from those that create it and earn it to those that don't.

Are you perhaps forgetting that many people do a lot of work and sacrifice so they can pass the benefits of that labor to their children so that they don't need to make those sacrifices? Who the hell are you or anyone else to decide where someone's wealth "should" go other than where they wanted it to go? I work my ass off so my kids will have a good life. Your plan would basically say "don't bother working hard, all the extra money will be distributed so everyone is "equal" with a level playing field.

Please, the stupidity of that whole notion would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that lots of people in positions of power have the same mentality.
Who are you to take credit for ability and intelligence you with born with without choice?

You worked for it? Why? Trace the fundamental root cause back to it's origin you will discover you yourself have no say in your situation no matter how hard you work.

The more intelligent a person is, the more they will realize it wasn't their choice to be intelligent.
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,181
2
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Uh, you are pretty misguided on this, among other things. We agree on the basic positives about the Estate Tax, but not your claim that government programs generally do harm.

You need to do some more reading or research about the offshore tax havens. They're doing quite well - what do you think the huge industry surrounding them is about?

Indeed, I jsut saw a number earlier today that the government estimates that 99% of wage income is taxed, but only 70% of other income.
The majority of income that is not taxed is actually by middle and lower class workers (self employed and those earning tips).

How many times have you had your house worked on and they offered you a discount for paying in cash? Happens to people I know all the time (I live in an apartment).
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,181
2
81
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Then you misunderstood. I dont believe in ANY estate taxes, as I believe leaving that money in the private sector does both the individual and society better. We can agree to disagree.
It does not do the economy any good because most wealthy hoard wealth which then is not put into the economy.

Money needs to be circulated into the economy, not simply invested and the American consumer hurting for money while the investor is sitting on the sidelines with so much cash they can't even find enough decent investments for it. This is shown today by the inflated prices and p/e ratios in the stock market. Too much money is in investor's hands and not enough in consumer's hands, which is why the stock market is so inflated in value today. (I'm speaking of in general of the last 20 years, not counting this recent bear market).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY