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

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,829
804
126
Originally posted by: JMapleton
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?
True; howevever, what you do with what you got is the difference often between those who succeed and those who dont. Had Stephen Hawking decided to wallow in self pity, he would not be who he is today. What you arent seeing is intelligence and more so ability are honed and developed. To develope those traits is a CHOICE.

Originally posted by: JMapleton
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.
False. Choices one makes throughtout his/her life determine who they become. Ever read Oprah's biography? She had every say so in her success because she had NOTHING in her favor growing up.

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

This quote is only half right. In reality, the more intelligent people learn, the more they realize they dont know. Maybe youre saying the same thing. And again, take someone of Stephen Hawking's caliber and have him wallow in self pity all his life, thats a CHOICE. Intelligence is dynamic.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,829
804
126
Originally posted by: JMapleton
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).
We'll agree to disagree. But your stance is moronic. There may be a hint of truth for the upper .5% of income earners, but certainly not the case for the majority of millionaire/billionaires.
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,179
2
81
Originally posted by: blackangst1
True; howevever, what you do with what you got is the difference often between those who succeed and those who dont. Had Stephen Hawking decided to wallow in self pity, he would not be who he is today. What you arent seeing is intelligence and more so ability are honed and developed. To develope those traits is a CHOICE.
Then this becomes a discussion about free will, which in my opinion does not exist. It seems completely ridiculous to say that a person can, just out of nowhere, CHOOSE something, and then say it somehow was not a result of a endless string of action-reactions birthed from the beginning of time.
 

ZeGermans

Banned
Dec 14, 2004
907
0
0
Why should people be able to pass on the entirety of their vast wealth to their children, all it does is inspire an oligarchy of people who haven't worked a day in their lives and spend their time making sure poor people starve to death (See William Buckley)
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
11
81
Originally posted by: JMapleton
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.
So money (which is a fiat currency whose value is not intrinsic to the item itself but rather exists nowhere but in the imaginations of humans) is now a "natural resource of the earth"?

Also, you don't address the disconnect at all. If anything, you further undermine your claim in the post that I initially quoted.

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.
The above quote DOES NOT support this next quote in any way, shape, or form:

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.
So which of these two opposing claims is your real position? They are clearly incompatible with each other. Money, having no intrinsic value, is nothing if not the product of a person's work and effort. It is not a naturally-occurring resource in any way.

ZV
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
11
81
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Then this becomes a discussion about free will, which in my opinion does not exist. It seems completely ridiculous to say that a person can, just out of nowhere, CHOOSE something, and then say it somehow was not a result of a endless string of action-reactions birthed from the beginning of time.
It must be nice to live in that little fantasy world where you're not responsible for any of your screw-ups.

ZV
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,377
3,500
126
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: JMapleton
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.
So money (which is a fiat currency whose value is not intrinsic to the item itself but rather exists nowhere but in the imaginations of humans) is now a "natural resource of the earth"?

Also, you don't address the disconnect at all. If anything, you further undermine your claim in the post that I initially quoted.

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.
The above quote DOES NOT support this next quote in any way, shape, or form:

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.
So which of these two opposing claims is your real position? They are clearly incompatible with each other. Money, having no intrinsic value, is nothing if not the product of a person's work and effort. It is not a naturally-occurring resource in any way.

ZV
Once someone is Dead, their Life Earnings no longer belong to any single Person.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: JMapleton
I'm sick of tired of the "family farm" or "family business" crap. If you want to be a farmer, buy a farm. You don't deserve a farm just because you grandpa had one.

Agree or disagree?
Totally disagree. Many family businesses are successful because the family members are devoted to the success of the business. My family on my mothers side have a *very* successful family insurance business. My uncle was very good at what he did. My cousin went to college and when he graduated he had him work for a partner rather than his father. He's since passed and the business is run and run well by my cousin.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
11
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Once someone is Dead, their Life Earnings no longer belong to any single Person.
That's nice, but it's a separate position. It's completely and utterly independent of the claim that we are not entitled to the product of the efforts they made while living.

Even if we take your position as a premise, it still does not logically follow that we all deserve a share of that wealth. The OP has claimed both that we do and do not all deserve that wealth. If we all do deserve it, then it is a tenuous claim at best to say that our deserving only exists once the producer has died. If we do not deserve it, then the producer's death does not magically impart a sudden deserving-ness that would override the producer's wishes.

You are arguing from emotion, not logic.

If you want to add the premise that anything not belonging to any single person (or "entity" to preserve the ability of corporations, governments, charities, etc to retain assets) belongs equally to all people, then it would follow that possessions should be dispersed to all people upon death. However, this simply adds another unsupported premise to the argument, it doesn't actually strengthen the conclusion.

ZV
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,902
4
81
I got a better plan, lets have the government take all our money, then let them hand it out to whomever they want to.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,377
3,500
126
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: sandorski
Once someone is Dead, their Life Earnings no longer belong to any single Person.
That's nice, but it's a separate position. It's completely and utterly independent of the claim that we are not entitled to the product of the efforts they made while living.

Even if we take your position as a premise, it still does not logically follow that we all deserve a share of that wealth. The OP has claimed both that we do and do not all deserve that wealth. If we all do deserve it, then it is a tenuous claim at best to say that our deserving only exists once the producer has died. If we do not deserve it, then the producer's death does not magically impart a sudden deserving-ness that would override the producer's wishes.

You are arguing from emotion, not logic.

ZV
Uhh, no I'm not. I'm arguing based upon the Idea that a Society can choose how these types of things can be structured. Peoples accumulation of Wealth largely depends on the Society in which they are born into. So in that sense Society has contributed to the Wealth accumulated by the Wealthy and as such have some claim on that Wealth. The OP's position is that while Living there is no Claim, but once that person passes the Wealth should be given back as the Dead no longer Need it.

In my first post I already talked about unintended negative consequences to such an Idea, but from a Philosophical point of view there is merit to the Idea.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
11
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: sandorski
Once someone is Dead, their Life Earnings no longer belong to any single Person.
That's nice, but it's a separate position. It's completely and utterly independent of the claim that we are not entitled to the product of the efforts they made while living.

Even if we take your position as a premise, it still does not logically follow that we all deserve a share of that wealth. The OP has claimed both that we do and do not all deserve that wealth. If we all do deserve it, then it is a tenuous claim at best to say that our deserving only exists once the producer has died. If we do not deserve it, then the producer's death does not magically impart a sudden deserving-ness that would override the producer's wishes.

You are arguing from emotion, not logic.

ZV
Uhh, no I'm not. I'm arguing based upon the Idea that a Society can choose how these types of things can be structured. Peoples accumulation of Wealth largely depends on the Society in which they are born into. So in that sense Society has contributed to the Wealth accumulated by the Wealthy and as such have some claim on that Wealth. The OP's position is that while Living there is no Claim, but once that person passes the Wealth should be given back as the Dead no longer Need it.

In my first post I already talked about unintended negative consequences to such an Idea, but from a Philosophical point of view there is merit to the Idea.
See my edit to my previous post where I attempt to clarify my position.

You are still arguing from emotion (as, ultimately, we all are) since your conclusion depends on additional unsupported premises. These premises flow from one's worldview, but are generally not derived from a position of pure logic. I agree that a society can choose how these things are structured, and that society is a strong influence on whether or not (and, if so, how much) wealth can be accumulated, but any moral judgement on whether that wealth should or should not be dispersed at death is just that, a moral judgement, and it cannot arise out of pure logic.

ZV
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,377
3,500
126
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: sandorski
Once someone is Dead, their Life Earnings no longer belong to any single Person.
That's nice, but it's a separate position. It's completely and utterly independent of the claim that we are not entitled to the product of the efforts they made while living.

Even if we take your position as a premise, it still does not logically follow that we all deserve a share of that wealth. The OP has claimed both that we do and do not all deserve that wealth. If we all do deserve it, then it is a tenuous claim at best to say that our deserving only exists once the producer has died. If we do not deserve it, then the producer's death does not magically impart a sudden deserving-ness that would override the producer's wishes.

You are arguing from emotion, not logic.

ZV
Uhh, no I'm not. I'm arguing based upon the Idea that a Society can choose how these types of things can be structured. Peoples accumulation of Wealth largely depends on the Society in which they are born into. So in that sense Society has contributed to the Wealth accumulated by the Wealthy and as such have some claim on that Wealth. The OP's position is that while Living there is no Claim, but once that person passes the Wealth should be given back as the Dead no longer Need it.

In my first post I already talked about unintended negative consequences to such an Idea, but from a Philosophical point of view there is merit to the Idea.
See my edit to my previous post where I attempt to clarify my position.

You are still arguing from emotion (as, ultimately, we all are) since your conclusion depends on additional unsupported premises. These premises flow from one's worldview, but are generally not derived from a position of pure logic. I agree that a society can choose how these things are structured, and that society is a strong influence on whether or not (and, if so, how much) wealth can be accumulated, but any moral judgement on whether that wealth should or should not be dispersed at death is just that, a moral judgement, and it cannot arise out of pure logic.

ZV
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up "Emotion", but whatever. As for Moral Judgement, well either way you go, yes a Moral Judgement is made. Kinda hard to avoid it as the current way is a Moral Judgement as well.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
774
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Our founding fathers would be cleaning their muskets...
I agree, the amount of wealth concentration and the plutocracy/aristocracy it's creating is scary indeed.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
774
126
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.
Yeah, it displeases me as well to think that children would have to work hard in life to be successful as well :roll:
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: alchemize
Our founding fathers would be cleaning their muskets...
I agree, the amount of wealth concentration and the plutocracy/aristocracy it's creating is scary indeed.
LOL Phokus, the "libertarian" (can we finally dispense with this silliness? You're about as libertarian as Hugo Chavez), ignorant of US history as he is most topics.


?To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.? ? Thomas Jefferson

?The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ?Thou shalt not covet? and ?Thou shalt not steal? were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.? ? John Adams



 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
11
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up "Emotion", but whatever.
Because it's easier conversationally to address the logic/illogic split as a logic/emotion split as well as being less prejudicial since "illogic" tends to have a strong negative connotation. Essentially I bring up emotion because that's the term I use for the non-logical decision. This isn't meant as a pejorative, but simply as a descriptive. The goal is to show that these decisions are dependent upon basic portions of one's worldview and are not accessible to logic.

Originally posted by: sandorski
As for Moral Judgement, well either way you go, yes a Moral Judgement is made. Kinda hard to avoid it as the current way is a Moral Judgement as well.
Agreed.

ZV
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
774
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: alchemize
Our founding fathers would be cleaning their muskets...
I agree, the amount of wealth concentration and the plutocracy/aristocracy it's creating is scary indeed.
LOL Phokus, the "libertarian" (can we finally dispense with this silliness? You're about as libertarian as Hugo Chavez), ignorant of US history as he is most topics.


?To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.? ? Thomas Jefferson

?The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ?Thou shalt not covet? and ?Thou shalt not steal? were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.? ? John Adams
I used to be a libertarian, then i woke up
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
774
126
The Estate Tax is an abomination and discriminates against the smallest, most oppressed minority in America: the wealthiest .05%. While it is true that no one supporting repeal has ever been able to find a family farm or small business that has actually had to close to pay the estate tax, it is a very sympathetic talking point that must be preserved.



That's why we here at The Institute for the Preservation of Dynastic Wealth (http://ipdw.org), who represent wealthy heirs like the Walton Family of Wal-Mart and others who support full repeal, have launched a national farmer search to highlight our desperate need for a flesh and blood example who can front for our interests.



Check it out at http://ipdw.org/farmersearch



The winning candidate, if any is found (fingers crossed), will serve as the repeal movement's new spokesperson. Winners will be featured in brochures, TV ads, and other campaign materials to abolish the Estate Tax. In addition, qualifying candidates will receive a gift bag filled with items from the 18 wealthy families funding the "movement" to repeal the Estate Tax, including a jug of wine from the Gallo Estates, a candy bar from the Mars family, and something kind of nice, but plastic, from the Wal-Mart heirs.
:laugh:
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
774
126
FYI, some of the wealthiest Americans are AGAINST the repeal of the estate tax. Dozens of families have formed a group with Bill Gates Sr. to advocate keeping the estate tax in place. Just want to dispel some of the myths that ALL rich people are greedy asshats, some actually care about society as a whole and not seeing it run by a bunch of corrupt dynastic plutocrats.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/...2003-01-12-gates_x.htm

 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,627
73
91
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: alchemize
Our founding fathers would be cleaning their muskets...
I agree, the amount of wealth concentration and the plutocracy/aristocracy it's creating is scary indeed.
LOL Phokus, the "libertarian" (can we finally dispense with this silliness? You're about as libertarian as Hugo Chavez), ignorant of US history as he is most topics.


?To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.? ? Thomas Jefferson

?The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ?Thou shalt not covet? and ?Thou shalt not steal? were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.? ? John Adams
Please don't use quotes like that. To use a paragraph written or spoken by our founders without giving context is highly disingenuous.

These were complicated people. Jefferson also wrote this

There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy. On the question, What is the best provision, you and I differ; but we differ as rational friends, using the free exercise of our own reason, and mutually indulging it's errors. You think it best to put the Pseudo-aristoi into a separate chamber of legislation where they may be hindered from doing mischief by their coordinate branches, and where also they may be a protection to wealth against the Agrarian and plundering enterprises of the Majority of the people. I think that to give them power in order to prevent them from doing mischief, is arming them for it, and increasing instead of remedying the evil. For if the coordinate branches can arrest their action, so may they that of the coordinates. Mischief may be done negatively as well as positively. Of this a cabal in the Senate of the U. S. has furnished many proofs. Nor do I believe them necessary to protect the wealthy; because enough of these will find their way into every branch of the legislation to protect themselves. From 15. to 20. legislatures of our own, in action for 30. years past, have proved that no fears of an equalisation of property are to be apprehended from them.
This was in a letter to Adams. These men weren't automatons. They had complicated beliefs and ideals. No doubt, they often found themselves questioning their positions (I wish more people here did the same). To try and sum up Jefferson or Adams by one quote is an insult to them and futile in its purpose. Although Jefferson may have been specifically addressing landed aristocracy's role in government, it's clear he despises landed wealth. Jefferson recognized the danger of generational wealth, and later in the letter even mentioned a way to prevent it (describes meritocracy).

At the first session of our legislature after the Declaration of Independance, we passed a law abolishing entails. And this was followed by one abolishing the privilege of Primogeniture, and dividing the lands of intestates equally among all their children, or other representatives. These laws, drawn by myself, laid the axe to the root of Pseudoaristocracy. And had another which I prepared been adopted by the legislature, our work would have been compleat. It was a Bill for the more general diffusion of learning. This proposed to divide every county into wards of 5. or 6. miles square, like your townships; to establish in each ward a free school for reading, writing and common arithmetic; to provide for the annual selection of the best subjects from these schools who might receive at the public expense a higher degree of education at a district school; and from these district schools to select a certain number of the most promising subjects to be compleated at an University, where all the useful sciences should be taught. Worth and genius would thus have been sought out from every condition of life, and compleatly prepared by education for defeating the competition of wealth and birth for public trusts.
He's describing a way to defeat aristocracy through free higher education (even University) for promising subjects. Free education also happens to be one of Marx's ten tenets of a Socialist society. This doesn't make Jefferson a Marxist, just as your single quote doesn't make Jefferson a laissez-faire Capitalist.

You can also read Jefferson's Virginia constitution here.

Every person of full age neither owning nor having owned [50] acres of land, shall be entitled to an appropriation of [50] acres or to so much as shall make up what he owns or has owned [50] acres in full and absolute dominion. And no other person shall be capable of taking an appropriation.
Perhaps Jefferson knew he couldn't completely get rid of landed estates or perhaps, in your quote, he genuinely felt that the government should never take from one to give to another. I can't tell because you've only given a few lines in what must have been a much larger letter or speech. If all I wanted to do is pick out a quote, I could pick these:

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682
"We are all the more reconciled to the tax on importations, because it falls exclusively on the rich, and with the equal partition of intestate's estates, constitutes the best agrarian law. In fact, the poor man in this country who uses nothing but what is made within his own farm or family, or within the United States, pays not a farthing of tax to the General Government, but on his salt; and should we go into that manufacture as we ought to do, he will pay not one cent." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1811. ME 13:39
"I may err in my measures, but never shall deflect from the intention to fortify the public liberty by every possible means, and to put it out of the power of the few to riot on the labors of the many." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1804. ME 11:33
"Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682
"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed... It is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682
"If the overgrown wealth of an individual is deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466
This last quote is from the same source as your's BTW. If you really want to get into an examination of this man's thoughts, you can go here. Granted, it's a hypothesis, but it is well-supported and far more detailed than the simple quote you gave.

The td;dr version: don't pick out quotes from complicated people and allude to the idea that this is what these people believed. I hate reading quotes from people. If you feel they are important enough to quote, you should at least read their work to discover the intricacies of their beliefs. You might be surprised to discover how Jefferson felt about Capitalism and wage-labor relationships.
 

bobsmith1492

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2004
3,875
3
81
Estate tax

So, if my parents worked hard their whole lives, investing it into their house and some land, then when they die, the government is entitled to a part of it instead of them giving it all to me?

Sounds reasonable. The government knows best, after all.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
774
126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: alchemize
Our founding fathers would be cleaning their muskets...
I agree, the amount of wealth concentration and the plutocracy/aristocracy it's creating is scary indeed.
LOL Phokus, the "libertarian" (can we finally dispense with this silliness? You're about as libertarian as Hugo Chavez), ignorant of US history as he is most topics.


?To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.? ? Thomas Jefferson

?The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ?Thou shalt not covet? and ?Thou shalt not steal? were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.? ? John Adams
And adding to BigDH01's post, Apparently, your hero Adam Smith is a s-s-s-s-s-s-ocialist!

The idea of a progressive tax has garnered support from economists and political scientists of many different ideologies - ranging from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, although there are differences of opinion about the optimal level of progressivity. Some economists[15] trace the origin of modern progressive taxation to Adam Smith, who wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.[16]
To expand on what i said about not being a libertarian anymore, i realized that you can be pro-capitalism without being a loony libertarian asshat. Even libertarians in this forum want more government regulation of the financial industry now.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,947
1,789
136
Originally posted by: JMapleton
Originally posted by: sactoking
There is a reason that sole proprietorships and partnerships have trouble getting funding: the business dissolves upon the death of the proprietor or ANY partner. In order for businesses to be successful and have any longevity, they have to incorporate or form some other legal entity separate from ownership.

Your proposal would, in effect, turn every small to medium business in the US into a proprietorship. It would kill America as you know it. All of the power would be transferred to the largest corporations.

No thanks.
I do not see how it would be transfered to the largest corporations. And even if they were it would not matter. The largest corporations would be owned by the shareholders and there were no wealthy dynasties the general middle class would own these corporations.

Furthermore, what would be required is a more extensive stock market system, where when the owner dies the shares of the company would simply be floated public and sold off.
And this, good sir, is why you have absolutely no clue about life, how life works, human nature, and why your proposal is completely idiotic.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,377
3,500
126
Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Estate tax

So, if my parents worked hard their whole lives, investing it into their house and some land, then when they die, the government is entitled to a part of it instead of them giving it all to me?

Sounds reasonable. The government knows best, after all.
Not really the Government, but Society.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY